This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-367
entitled 'Military Education: Improved Oversight and Management Needed
for DOD’s Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs' which was
released on April 20, 2012.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Committees:
April 2012:
Military Education:
Improved Oversight and Management Needed for DOD’s Fellowship and
Training-with-Industry Programs:
GAO-12-367:
GAO Highlights Logo
Highlights of GAO-12-367, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Defense (DOD), which includes the military services,
selects mid- to upper-career-level military officers to participate in
fellowship and training-with-industry programs conducted at non-DOD
organizations such as universities, think tanks, private corporations,
federal agencies, and Congress. For some fellowships, the military
departments pay a fee or tuition to the host organization. GAO was
directed to review DOD’s use of these programs. GAO’s objectives were
to determine: (1) the statutory provisions that authorize DOD’s
fellowship and training-with-industry programs for military officers,
(2) the extent of the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s (OSD)
visibility over these programs, and (3) the extent to which the
services are able to determine that they derive benefits from these
programs. GAO analyzed relevant laws and DOD policies, collected data,
and interviewed OSD and military service officials on their oversight
and management roles and responsibilities for these programs.
What GAO Found:
GAO determined that DOD primarily uses two explicit statutory
authorities— section 2603 of Title 10 of the United States Code, which
authorizes servicemembers to accept fellowships from certain
organizations, and section 2013 of Title 10 of the United States Code,
which authorizes the training of servicemembers at nongovernmental
facilities—-for its fellowships and training-with-industry programs
for military officers. For two specific types of fellowships—-
Legislative and Interagency-—the underlying authorities are less
explicit than they are for the others.
OSD has limited visibility over its fellowship and training-with-
industry programs for several reasons. First, OSD has not developed a
mission statement that would clearly define the respective key
purposes for these programs. Having a clear mission statement is
critical because it defines an organization’s purpose in language that
states desired outcomes. Additionally, OSD has not consistently
enforced its requirement for the military departments to provide an
annual report on fellowship and training-with-industry programs.
Further, not all fellowship and training-with-industry programs have a
designated office within each department for preparing the annual
report. OSD’s visibility is also limited by not having a reliable
inventory of these various programs, and by not having a clear and
commonly shared definition of a fellowship. Without improved
oversight, OSD’s visibility over the military departments’ compliance
with its requirements governing these programs will remain limited.
Additionally, visibility is limited over the legislative fellowship
program in particular because oversight responsibilities are not
clearly delineated, and because OSD does not have documented criteria
for the placement of DOD fellows with the offices of congressional
committees and members. OSD officials agree that such criteria would
be helpful since it does not have enough available fellows to meet the
full congressional demand.
The military services are not well positioned to determine the extent
of the benefits they are deriving from their participation in these
programs for four principal reasons. First, not all of the services
conduct periodic program reviews, as are required for some programs.
In addition, the reviews that are conducted are not comprehensive in
that they do not assess the program against program goals using
quantifiable performance measures, review the needs that prompted the
program, incorporate feedback from fellows into the review, or
document the results of the review. Second, they do not have clear
guidance as to what qualifies as a postfellowship assignment—an
assignment that uses the skills and knowledge developed during the
fellowship program—or criteria for when such assignments can be
postponed or waived, thus limiting the extent the services’ are able
to determine they are deriving benefits from these programs. Third,
the services do not know their overall program costs, so it is
difficult to know whether these programs are cost-effective. Finally,
some of the services do not have memoranda of understanding with the
non-DOD host organizations, such as think tanks, so they cannot be
assured that expectations are clearly understood and the intended
benefits are obtained. Without better management controls, the services’
ability to determine the benefits of these programs will remain
limited. However, service officials believe that they obtain benefits
from fellowships and training-with-industry programs.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making 11 recommendations to DOD for improving oversight and
management of DOD’s fellowship and training-with-industry programs—-
for example, submitting DOD-required annual reports and performing
service-required program reviews—-that would enhance OSD’s visibility
over the programs and better position DOD to determine the extent to
which it derives benefits from them. In response to a draft of this
report, DOD concurred with the 11 recommendations and stated its
action plan to implement the recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-367]. For more
information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or
farrellb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
DOD Uses Several Statutory Authorities for Fellowship and Training-
with-Industry Programs:
OSD Has Limited Visibility over Fellowship and Training-with-Industry
Programs:
Military Services Are Not Well Positioned to Determine the Extent of
the Benefits from These Programs:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Life-cycle Phases of a Fellowship Program:
Appendix III: Military Service Guidance on Fellowship and Training-
with-Industry Programs:
Appendix IV: Ethics Guidance Provided to Fellows:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables
Table 1: Offices within Each Service Involved in Management of
Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs:
Table 2: Number of DOD Fellows and Training-with-Industry Participants
for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2011:
Table 3: Number of Congressional Requests for DOD Legislative Fellows
and the Number That DOD Provides, Academic Years 2009-2010 through
2011-2012:
Table 4: Military Service Requirement for Periodic Program Reviews:
Table 5: Military Service Guidance on Fellowships and Training-with-
Industry Programs:
Figures:
Figure 1: Selected Military Educational Opportunities and Career
Progression:
Figure 2: Fellowship Program Life-cycle:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense:
USD P&R: Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 20, 2012:
Congressional Committees:
The Department of Defense (DOD), which includes the military services,
selects mid- to upper-career-level[Footnote 1] military officers to
participate in fellowship and training-with-industry programs at non-
DOD organizations such as universities, think tanks,[Footnote 2]
private corporations, federal agencies, and Congress. For some
fellowships, the military departments pay a fee or tuition to the host
organization. According to DOD, the department’s intent for its
fellowship program is to help fulfill a present need, anticipated
requirement, or future capability that contributes to the
effectiveness of the participating Military Department and DOD.
Congressional interest in these programs has grown, in part due to an
increase in the number of military officers participating in one
particular program—-the Legislative Fellowship—-starting in 2008.
[Footnote 3] We were directed, in the Senate report accompanying a
bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011,
to review DOD educational and legislative fellowships as well as
training-with-industry programs and to report to the congressional
defense committees. Accordingly, we examined these programs to
determine: (1) the statutory provisions that authorize DOD’s
fellowship and training-with-industry programs for military officers,
(2) the extent of the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s (OSD)
visibility over these programs, and (3) the extent to which the
military services are able to determine that they derive benefits from
these programs.
To address our first objective, we researched and analyzed relevant
legal authorities for DOD to use fellowship and training-with-industry
programs, reviewed DOD and service regulations and guidance related to
these programs, and interviewed relevant DOD attorneys and received
written responses to questions on DOD’s use of these authorities. For
our second objective, we collected and analyzed available service data
on the numbers and types of fellowships and training-with-industry
programs offered from fiscal years 2007 through 2011; interviewed
officials in OSD, particularly with the offices of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R), and the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs; and collected and
reviewed DOD-required service annual reports. For the third objective,
we interviewed officials within the four military services and
reviewed DOD and service guidance related to these programs. Most of
our interviews centered on obtaining information about roles and
responsibilities related to overseeing and managing fellowship and
training-with-industry programs,[Footnote 4] and particularly on
activities that provide means of ensuring that DOD received benefits
from these programs. More specifically, we collected information on
service program goals, program reviews, costs of the programs, and
memoranda of understanding between the services and host
organizations. We found the fellowship and training-with-industry data
provided to us by the services on the number of participants in these
programs to be sufficiently reliable regarding contextual information
on the minimum number of participants; however, these data do not
allow us to provide actual totals. We conducted this performance
review from March 2011 through April 2012 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. (See appendix I for a more
detailed description of our scope and methodology.)
Background:
DOD’s fellowship and training-with-industry programs comprise a few of
the several vehicles DOD uses to provide training and education to its
military officers to develop and advance their careers while in the
military. Officers have educational opportunities throughout their
careers, both within and outside of the military educational system.
These include attendance at intermediate- and senior-level military
schools, as well as participation in graduate programs to obtain
advanced degrees. Fellowship and training-with-industry programs
constitute another type of professional development that officers may
receive in addition to or in lieu of attendance at a military school.
Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs:
To provide guidance to the services on participation in a fellowship
or training-with-industry program, USD P&R issued DOD Instruction
1322.06.[Footnote 5] Under this instruction, a fellowship is defined
as an assignment in which selected DOD personnel work away from DOD to
gain education or experience of value to both the DOD component and
the gaining organization. Military officers can participate in a
variety of types of fellowships at host organizations such as
universities, think tanks, corporations, federal agencies, and
congressional committees or member offices. Most of these fellowships
are limited to a duration of no longer than 12 months. The following
types of organizations can host fellowship and training-with-industry
participants:
* Universities. For example, Tufts University, a private university in
Massachusetts, hosts fellows from the military services within the
International Security Studies Program at its Fletcher School, Tufts’
graduate school in international affairs. Fellows at the Fletcher
School focus on research and writing requirements and participate in
activities both inside and outside of the classroom. The Marine Corps
Fellows may receive a master’s degree through this program.
* Think tanks. For example, the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit
think tank based in Washington, D.C., has hosted fellows under its
21st Century Defense Initiative—one of Brookings’ research projects.
This initiative focuses on the future of war, U.S. defense needs and
priorities, and the defense system. Fellows from the military services
spend a year at Brookings researching and publishing on defense topics
and provide policy feedback to help craft realistic, applicable policy
recommendations for the military services. Fellows at Brookings may
also elect to attend courses to obtain an executive certificate in
public leadership, for an additional fee.
* Corporations. For example, as part of the Secretary of Defense
Corporate Fellowship Program, these fellows are trained at the
executive level to learn how the host corporations use innovative
practices and technology to plan, organize, and manage, and how these
business practices could be applied within the military services. The
fellows shadow corporate executives and write a paper on their
observations and experiences upon completion of the fellowship.
* Federal agencies. For example, the United States Agency for
International Development is one of the federal agencies that host
fellows from the Army Interagency Fellowship program and from the
Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellowships program. Federal agency
fellows are placed with departments or agencies to develop a more
thorough understanding of the host agency’s mission, culture,
capabilities, and procedures. The Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force
currently send fellows to other federal departments or agencies.
* Congressional committees or members’ offices, as part of DOD’s
Legislative Fellowship program. This program offers officers an
educational opportunity to learn more about the legislative process by
being placed with various committees, or with the staff of the House
or Senate Majority or Minority Leader, or with the staff of the
Speaker of the House.[Footnote 6] In addition, the Army sends its
legislative fellows to George Washington University to obtain Masters’
degrees in Legislative Affairs. The Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force
offer their officers the opportunity to take courses for credit or to
receive a certificate in Legislative Affairs at the Georgetown’s
Government Affairs Institute.[Footnote 7]
Fellows pursue individual research and writing projects in
consultation with host organization experts or faculty, and they may
elect to become involved in host organization projects and participate
in conferences, seminars, or classes. In addition, fellows share
operational and service insights with host organization staff. Some
university and think tank host organizations charge the military
departments a fee or tuition for hosting fellows.
In addition to fellowship programs, DOD offers training-with-industry
programs.[Footnote 8] The DOD instruction defines training-with-
industry as a nondegree-producing program designed to provide training
or skills in best business procedures and practices not available
through existing military or advanced civilian schooling for
identifiable DOD requirements. The instruction states that there must
be an existing need or desired future capability fulfilled by the
gained training-with-industry experience. The military departments
generally do not pay corporations a fee or tuition to host training-
with-industry participants.
DOD continues to provide officers participating in both fellowships
and training-with-industry programs their normal pay and allowances.
In exchange, after their participation, officers participating in most
of the fellowships discussed in this report incur an active duty
service commitment of three times the length of the term they spent in
the fellowship or training-with-industry program.
Professional Military Education:
Within DOD’s professional military educational system, officers are
afforded several key opportunities.[Footnote 9] At an officer level of
O3,[Footnote 10] selected officers could attend primary level
education, generally at the Branch, warfare, or staff specialty
schools. At the level of O4,[Footnote 11] selected officers attend
intermediate level education, generally at the service’s command and
staff college or an equivalent military school. At the level of O5 or
O6,[Footnote 12] selected officers attend senior-level education,
generally at the service’s war college or at an equivalent military
school. Officers may earn graduate degrees upon completing their
intermediate- or senior-level education at a military school. They
additionally have other opportunities throughout their careers to earn
graduate degrees; for example, officers may apply to attend a college
or university to receive a master’s or PhD degree in a graduate
educational program.
Military officers may participate in fellowships as either an
alternative or a supplement to their professional military education,
as shown in figure 1. Three of the services—-the Army, the Marine
Corps, and the Air Force—-grant professional military educational
credit for some of their fellowship programs at the intermediate or
senior level.[Footnote 13] The Air Force, for example, grants
professional military education credit for all of its intermediate-
and senior-level fellowships. These fellowships replace an officer’s
in-residence intermediate or senior professional military education.
[Footnote 14]
One service program—-the Army Legislative Fellowship Program-—grants a
degree.
Figure 1: Selected Military Educational Opportunities and Career
Progression:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
In-house Education:
Officer level 03-04:
Primary level education:
* Branch, warfare, or staff specialty school;
Intermediate-level education:
* Services' Command and Staff Colleges;
* Joint Forces Staff College[A];
Officer level 05-06:
Senior-level education:
Services' War Colleges;
* Industrial College of the Armed Forces;
* National War College;
* Joint Forces Staff College.
Fellowships:
Army:
Officer level 03-04:
* Legislative Fellowship;
* Arroyo Rand Fellowship;
* Regional Security Studies Fellowships;
* Intermediate-level Education Interagency Fellowship;
Officer level 05-06:
* Arroyo Rand Fellowship;
* Regional Security Studies Fellowships;
* Senior Service College Fellowship;
* Officer level 06 only: Senior Fellowships;
Navy:
Officer level 03-04:
* Legislative Fellowship;
* Federal Executive Fellowship;
* Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship;
Officer level 05-06:
* Legislative Fellowship;
* Federal Executive Fellowship;
* Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship;
Officer level 06 only:
* Council on Foreign Relations Fellowship.
Marine Corps:
Officer level 03-04:
* Legislative Fellowship (Officer Level 02 also eligible);
* Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellowships;
Officer level 05-06:
* Legislative Fellowship (Officer Level 02 also eligible);
* Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellowships;
Officer level 06 only:
* Council on Foreign Relations Fellowship.
Air Force:
Officer level 03-04:
* Legislative Fellowship;
* Intermediate Development Education Fellowships;
Officer level 05-06:
* Senior Development Education Fellowships
Officer level 06 only:
* Senior Fellowships.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD fellowship programs.
Notes: This figure excludes some fellowships or other training
opportunities, such as the White House Fellowships, the Secretary of
Defense Corporate Fellowships, and training-with-industry programs.
With the exception of the Arroyo Rand Fellowship, the Legislative
Fellowships, and the Council on Foreign Relations Fellowships, each
fellowship program is comprised of various host organizations. Also,
for some fellowship opportunities, eligibility is extended to
noncommissioned officers.
[A] The Joint Forces Staff College includes the intermediate and
senior Advanced Joint Professional Military Education, and the senior
Joint Advanced Warfighting School.
[End of figure]
When fellowship programs are provided in lieu of attendance at a
military school, the participants are generally prohibited from also
attending the corresponding in-residence military school program. For
example, a fellow who attends a senior-level fellowship and is granted
senior-level professional military education credits is prohibited
from attending a senior in-resident War College program. Unlike most
fellowships, DOD’s training-with-industry programs exist outside of
the professional military educational system. These opportunities do
not grant professional military education credits; instead, they are
considered a supplemental professional development and training
experience in private sector practices that are not available through
existing military education and training programs.
Roles, Responsibilities, and Guidance:
USD P&R has overall responsibility for fellowship and training-with-
industry policy for fellowship programs that fall under DOD
Instruction 1322.06.[Footnote 15] This Instruction covers most of the
fellowship and training-with-industry programs in our review.[Footnote
16] As specified in the instruction, each military departmental
secretary has oversight and management responsibilities for that
department’s programs, with the exception of the Legislative
Fellowship Program. For that program, each department selects
nominees, whose names are then sent to USD P&R for approval.[Footnote
17] The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs places these officers with congressional committees or with
various congressional staffs. Additionally, some of DOD’s fellowship
programs are administered separately; for example, the Secretary of
Defense Corporate Fellowship Program and the Medical Professional
Fellowship Program are administered under two other, separate DOD
instructions,[Footnote 18] with different OSD offices having oversight
and policy responsibilities for them. The Secretary of Defense
Corporate Fellowship Program is managed by a director who is part of
the National Defense University, under the authority, direction, and
control of DOD’s Deputy Chief Management Officer, subject to certain
exceptions. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs,
under USD P&R, is responsible for monitoring compliance with DOD
Instruction 6000.13 and providing additional guidance for medical
fellowships, and the secretaries of the military departments are
responsible for administering these programs.
Postfellowship Assignments:
The DOD instruction[Footnote 19] states that the secretaries of the
military departments are responsible for properly managing the skills
gained by the participants in the fellowship program, and for ensuring
that current assignments utilizing the fellowships and training-with-
industry positions meet the intent of the program and continue to meet
military department and DOD requirements or anticipated needs. The
instruction also states that participants in fellowships and training-
with-industry should have an immediate follow-on utilization tour upon
completion, but that this requirement can be delayed or waived by a
military department, as necessary. Utilization tour assignments are
generally based upon the area of expertise that the fellowship or
training-with-industry program is intended to develop. For example,
utilization tour assignments for legislative fellows are conducted
primarily within the services’ offices of legislative liaison or
legislative affairs, or within another office that interacts with
Congress. The utilization tours for other fellowships vary depending
on the host organization or subject-matter expertise of the program.
For example, a fellow who attends a university or think tank with a
program on national security issues and strategy may be assigned to a
utilization tour in a strategy, policy, and planning office.
Fellowships with a more specific focus will generally have more
specific utilization assignments. A fellow at a host organization with
a cyber or nuclear focus may be assigned to a utilization tour
involving the development of strategies for cyber or nuclear warfare.
Training-with-industry participants are generally used in positions
directly related to a corporation’s area of expertise. For example, a
training-with-industry participant at a private company that
specializes in logistics and the transportation of items may be later
assigned to a DOD position in supply chain management.
The military departments are responsible for the management of their
respective fellowship and training-with-industry programs (see
appendix II on the life-cycle phases of a fellowship program for a
more detailed description). In addition to statutory authorities and
the DOD instruction, the military services also have their own
guidance or regulations covering their respective legislative
fellowship, nonlegislative fellowship, and training-with-industry
programs (see appendix III for a list of service guidance).
DOD Uses Several Statutory Authorities for Fellowship and Training-
with-Industry Programs:
We determined that DOD uses several statutory authorities for its
fellowships and training-with-industry programs for military officers.
Primarily, it uses two explicit statutory authorities. However, for
two types of fellowships—legislative and interagency—the underlying
authorities are less explicit than they are for the others.
DOD Primarily Uses Two Explicit Statutory Authorities:
We determined that DOD’s authority to pursue fellowships at non-DOD
educational institutions, foundations, and corporations derives
primarily from section 2603 of Title 10 of the United States Code,
which authorizes servicemembers to accept fellowships from certain
organizations, and section 2013 of Title 10 of the United States Code,
which authorizes the training of servicemembers at nongovernmental
facilities. Generally, DOD’s fellowships and training-with-industry
programs are conducted under one or both of these authorities.
Section 2603[Footnote 20] allows servicemembers, subject to
regulations,[Footnote 21] to accept a fellowship offered by a
corporation, fund, foundation, or educational institution that is
organized primarily for scientific, literary, or educational purposes,
and the benefits may be accepted by the member in addition to the member
’s military pay and allowances subject to certain conditions. The
member is required to agree in writing to serve on active duty after
completion of the fellowship for a period of at least three times the
length of the period of the education or training.
To create fellowship and training-with-industry programs with a
variety of nongovernmental facilities, DOD also uses provisions in
section 2013 that authorize it to enter into agreements or other
arrangements for the training of servicemembers with nongovernmental
organizations such as medical, scientific, technical, educational,
research, or professional institutions, foundations, or organizations—
in addition to the business, commercial, or industrial firms,
corporations, or other nongovernmental facilities, as defined by
section 2013. These agreements or other arrangements are not subject
to certain requirements normally applicable to government contracts.
[Footnote 22] Section 2013 also authorizes DOD to pay expenses in
connection with training at nongovernmental facilities in addition to
the member’s military pay.
DOD Uses Less Explicit Authorities for Two Specific Fellowship
Programs:
Although most of DOD’s fellowships or training-with-industry programs
are authorized under section 2603 and section 2013, we determined that
the authorities DOD uses for its military personnel[Footnote 23] to
participate in two specific types of fellowships-—legislative and
interagency—-are less explicit. According to OSD attorneys, DOD’s
legislative and interagency fellowships for servicemembers are
conducted using a combination of more general departmental authorities
to train personnel. For example, these attorneys noted that the
secretaries of the military departments have the authority to train
members of the military services within their respective military
departments, subject to the authority, direction, and control of the
Secretary of Defense.[Footnote 24] They also cited other authorities
related to detailing personnel outside of DOD in support of these
fellowships. These attorneys cited section 4301 of Title 10 of the
United States Code as an example that authorizes (among other things)
the Secretary of the Army to detail members of the Army as students or
observers at locations such as industrial plants, hospitals, and other
places, where they would be best suited to acquire knowledge or
experience in certain specialties.[Footnote 25] These attorneys noted
that, because legislative and interagency fellowships involve
detailing servicemembers to “other places” best suited to acquire
relevant knowledge, these authorities could also be used to support
fellowships. OSD attorneys further indicated that these statutory
sections provide authority to conduct legislative and interagency
fellowships, but agreed that the authority for those specific programs
is not as explicit as the authority provided for other types of
fellowships, or for intra-governmental training of civilians.
OSD Has Limited Visibility over Fellowship and Training-with-Industry
Programs:
OSD has limited visibility over its fellowship and training-with-
industry programs, because (1) OSD has not developed a clear mission
statement for these programs that defines the programs’ purpose, (2)
OSD has not consistently enforced its requirement for the military
departments to provide annual reports on fellowship and training-with-
industry programs, and (3) not all fellowship and training-with-
industry programs have a designated office within each department to
be responsible for preparing information for these programs. In turn,
OSD does not have a reliable inventory of the various fellowship and
training-with-industry programs to educate its military officers. The
absence of a reliable inventory is due, in part, to OSD’s not having a
clear definition of a fellowship and the lack of a common reporting
requirement for the annual report on fellowships and training-with-
industry to OSD, both of which complicate OSD’s ability to develop a
reliable inventory. Additionally, OSD has limited visibility over one
type of fellowship program-—legislative—-because OSD has not clearly
delineated roles and responsibilities for overseeing this program and
has not developed documented criteria for the placement of DOD fellows
with congressional committees and members. OSD officials agree that
such placement criteria would be helpful, since DOD does not have
enough legislative fellows to meet the full congressional demand.
OSD Has Not Developed a Clear Mission Statement for Fellowship and
Training Programs:
OSD has not developed a mission statement that would clearly define
the respective key purposes for the legislative and nonlegislative
fellowship and training-with-industry programs. Having a clear mission
statement is critical because it defines an organization’s purpose in
language that states desired outcomes.[Footnote 26] A mission
statement ultimately describes why an organization exists and
constitutes an important element in an oversight structure.[Footnote
27] Further, a mission statement is important because it serves as a
basis for having quantifiable performance goals. DOD’s instruction on
fellowships and training-with-industry provides a very broadly written
mission statement for the legislative and training-with-industry
programs, but does not provide a mission statement for the
nonlegislative fellowship program. For the legislative fellowship
program, the instruction identifies the need for servicemembers to
learn the operative process of the legislative branch. For the
training-with-industry program, the instruction identifies the need to
develop skills in private sector procedures and practices not
available through existing military or advanced civilian educational
and training programs. However, these definitions do not identify the
purpose of providing participants with additional skills and knowledge
in terms of enhancing their value to DOD throughout their careers. An
OSD official stated that establishing a clear mission statement would
improve its ability to conduct policy oversight of DOD’s fellowship
and training programs. Without a clearly defined mission statement,
OSD is not in a position to know the extent to which desired program
outcomes are being achieved.
OSD Has Not Consistently Enforced an Annual Reporting Requirement on
the Respective Military Departments’ Programs:
Prior to our review, USD P&R did not enforce its requirement that the
military departments submit an annual report on their program reviews,
and has not received annual reports for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Such annual reports can enable USD P&R to have increased visibility
over these programs and can assist in confirming that DOD policy is
being implemented as expected. DOD Instruction 1322.06 directs USD P&R
to maintain overall responsibility for DOD fellowship and training-
with-industry policy. This instruction also directs the military
departments to conduct an annual review of their respective fellowship
and training-with-industry programs to ensure that they are in
compliance, and to submit the results of their reviews to USD P&R by
January 31 of each year.
Since our review began, USD P&R has taken steps toward enforcing this
requirement with regard to the fiscal year 2010 reports.[Footnote 28]
However, two of the departments’ fiscal year 2010 reports were
incomplete in that some covered only a portion of the programs, and
the third department’s report was submitted significantly after the
deadline. Specific details on these reports follow.
* The Army reported only on one type of fellowship for fiscal year
2010-—legislative. According to some Army officials, they did not have
any records indicating that the requested reports should include their
nonlegislative and training-with-industry programs—a requirement about
which they said they did not know until our review brought it to their
attention.
* The Navy and the Marine Corps, conversely, reported on their
nonlegislative and training-with-industry programs for fiscal year
2010, but not on their legislative fellowships. Further, according to
Navy program officials, USD P&R did not ask for the annual report in
2008 and 2009. Navy officials stated that they noticed this
requirement in 2010 while seeking approval for a separate task and
brought it to the attention of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, who then tasked the program office to
complete the report for the nonlegislative fellowship and training-
with-industry programs. The Navy and Marine Corps provided their
reports to USD P&R for the first time in February 2011.
* The Air Force report for fiscal year 2010 was submitted to USD P&R
in December 2011 (approximately 11 months after the deadline), but
only after USD P&R officials told Air Force officials in November 2011
to provide them with a report. The report included general information
on legislative and nonlegislative fellowships, and on training-with-
industry programs.
USD P&R officials acknowledged that they did not request these reports
from the services, although USD P&R had been requiring these annual
reports as of the November 2007 revision to their instruction. Unless
it consistently enforces the requirement for the services to submit
the annual reports, USD P&R does not have the visibility to fully
review the services’ fellowship and training-with-industry programs
and limits its ability to perform its oversight responsibilities.
Not All Programs Have a Designated Office for Preparing Annual Reports:
Certain offices have been designated by their military departments as
responsible for compiling information on some fellowship programs for
the OSD-required annual report; however, not all fellowship programs
have a designated office for compiling this report. Each service has
separate organizations that manage their legislative fellowship,
nonlegislative fellowship, and training-with-industry programs,
respectively. We contacted many different organizations to obtain a
comprehensive picture of the various phases of the fellowship and
training-with-industry programs, as shown in table 1 below,. (See app.
II on the life-cycle phases of a fellowship program, such as
monitoring the fellows’ progress during the fellowship, ensuring
completion, and assigning the fellows to a follow-on utilization or
postfellowship tour.) For example, we had to gather information from
seven different organizations within the Army to obtain a
comprehensive view for just one of that service’s programs—-the Army’s
Senior Service College Fellowships Program.
Table 1: Offices within Each Service Involved in Management of
Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs:
Army:
Congressional Operations Division;
Combined Arms Center;
Department of Academic Affairs Army War college;
Interagency Student Division;
Leadership Development Division;
Senior Leaders Division;
Strategic Leadership Division;
Retirements and Separations Division;
Navy:
Education Branch;
Distribution Management;
Graduate Education and Training Placement;
Information Dominance Corps;
Legislative Liaison Office;
Office of Supply Corps Personnel;
Strategy Office.
Marine Corps:
Congressional Fellows Program Office;
Marine Corps University;
Officer Assignments Branch.
Air Force:
Congressional Support Branch;
Colonel Management Office;
Force Development;
Fellowships Program Office;
Developmental Education Branch;
Officer Promotions, Appointments, and Selective Continuation Branch;
Learning Division;
Acquisitions Career Management.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD information.
Note: For the Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowship, the services
are responsible for selection of the fellows and certain limited
administrative tasks. The Deputy Chief Management Officer in OSD has
oversight and supervisory responsibilities over the program, and a
director at the National Defense University manages the program.
[End of table]
Although we interviewed officials in numerous offices within each
military service to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the
various programs, only some fellowship program offices acknowledged
having been designated as having responsibility for compiling
information on their program for the annual report. Three service
fellowship programs have included the requirement for the annual
report in their program guidance-—the Army Legislative Fellowship
Program, the Navy Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship Program, and the
Legislative Fellowship Program. However, the Air Force and Marine
Corps legislative fellowship, nonlegislative fellowship, and training-
with-industry programs and the Army and Navy nonlegislative fellowship
and training-with-industry programs have not formally designated
program offices for the annual preparation of these reports.
Officials in the policy office of the Air Force and the Navy told us
that while they have not been formally designated as responsible for
compiling this report, they anticipate being given the responsibility
for reaching out to the fellowship and training-with-industry programs
to obtain information for the report. Prior to the reports being
submitted in response to congressional inquiries in 2009 and 2010,
some program officials said that they were not aware that they were
responsible for submitting a report to USD P&R because they were not
tasked as the office responsible for this requirement. Without having
a designated office within each department to take responsibility for
reporting requirements for their respective fellowship and training-
with-industry programs, USD P&R’s visibility over departmental
compliance with its instruction and relevant laws will continue to be
limited. In the course of this review, we identified an important
consequence of USD P&R’s limited visibility over DOD’s various
fellowship and training programs. By law,[Footnote 29] servicemembers
in certain fellowships are required to complete a service obligation
for a period of no less than three times the length of a fellowship.
However, one Army regulation[Footnote 30] for certain nonlegislative
fellowship programs stipulated a service obligation length that was
not in compliance with the law or with the DOD instruction governing
that program. In that instance, the Army was allowing certain officers
to meet the service obligation requirement for a 1-year fellowship by
committing to serve 2 years rather than the statutory 3 years.
Subsequently, Army officials have informed us that they are in the
process of taking corrective action to change the Army guidance based
on our finding. USD P&R officials with whom we met were unaware of
this instance of noncompliance.
OSD Has Not Developed a Reliable Inventory of Fellowship and Training-
with-Industry Programs and Participants:
USD P&R has not developed a reliable inventory of DOD’s fellowship and
training-with-industry programs—an inventory that would be useful for
enabling DOD to know how often, at what cost, and in what capacity it
is using these alternative educational and training programs for its
military officers to meet new and emerging skill needs, and to better
fulfill its mission. We have previously reported[Footnote 31] on the
importance of maintaining a complete inventory of the type of skills
an agency needs to better position it to properly assess gaps in its
capabilities and to appropriately assess risk so it can make informed
decisions about the future direction, scope, and nature of its efforts
and investments in support of emerging skill needs. Although USD P&R
has collected some of the DOD instruction-required annual reports on
fellowships and training-with-industry programs, these do not enable
it to determine the totality of the fellowship participants and
programs, or of the needs these programs address. We found that these
required annual reports did not provide consistent and detailed
information linking the fellowships with current or emerging needs,
which are the basis for offering the various types of fellowship
opportunities. Such information would be useful in helping USD P&R
develop a robust inventory and identify training and educational
solutions to fill identified gaps. We collected information, which USD
P&R was unable to provide us, on program participants from the
services dating back to 2007,[Footnote 32] and we found that, at a
minimum, 1,797 mid- and senior-rank officers participated in
fellowships and training-with-industry programs from fiscal years 2007
through 2011, as shown in table 2.
Table 2: Number of DOD Fellows and Training-with-Industry Participants
for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2011:
Type of program: Legislative;
Army: 90;
Navy: 69;
Marine Corps: 46;
Air Force: 145;
Total by type: 350.
Type of program: Nonlegislative;
Army: 400;
Navy: 81;
Marine Corps: 68;
Air Force: 500;
Total by type: 1,049.
Type of program: Training-with-industry;
Army: 265;
Navy: 6;
Marine Corps: N/A;
Air Force: 127;
Total by type: 398.
Total by service:
Army: 755;
Navy: 156;
Marine Corps: 114;
Air Force: 772;
Total by type: 1,797.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Note: These numbers represent a minimum number of participants and not
actual totals.
For some years, the fellows were assigned according to a calendar year
or an academic year. Calendar year fellowships were counted in the
corresponding fiscal year.
[End of table]
The DOD instruction on fellowships and training-with-industry defines
the term fellowship, but we found that usage of the term to describe
various educational opportunities varies significantly from service to
service, thus complicating the compilation of a reliable and complete
inventory. For example, the Air Force increased its total number of
fellowships offered when it changed the designation of some of its “
internships” to “fellowships” after adding an interagency rotation
requirement to the program.[Footnote 33] Air Force officials said that
they viewed the internship as being more aligned with the fellowship
description in the DOD instruction, and thus changed the designation.
Army officials, on the other hand, said that their interagency
fellowships—similar to those of the Air Force—are called fellowships,
but are not counted as fellowships for reporting purposes. USD P&R
officials did not know about the Air Force change and stated that they
disagreed with it. They observed that the instruction’s definition of
a fellowship could be made more descriptive to avoid ambiguities such
as this. In another example, the Navy included the Secretary of
Defense Corporate Fellows Program in its annual report for 2010—a
program that is governed by a different instruction, overseen by the
Deputy Chief Management Officer, and managed in coordination with the
National Defense University director. In this same report, however,
the Navy did not include its Medical Professional Fellowship Programs,
which are governed by a separate instruction and managed through the
Navy Medicine Professional Development Center.
USD P&R officials said that inconsistent views as to which fellowships
should be counted—views that reflect the absence of a clear and
commonly shared definition of what constitutes a fellowship—could
hinder the development of an accurate inventory. Officials agreed that
a more specific, DOD-wide definition of a fellowship, which would
explain which opportunities warrant using the word “fellowship” in the
program title, could be helpful. They said they anticipate conducting
a review of each service’s policies or regulations that focus on
fellowships and training-with-industry programs, to better ensure that
all have the same definitions and are counting the programs and
participants comparably, and that the services’ policies or
regulations are in line with DOD Instruction 1322.06. This review will
become even more important given that DOD will be drawing down its
force structure and given that program officials within the services
informed us that they are interested in increasing the number of
fellowship and training-with-industry opportunities in the future.
The responsibilities of the Office of the USD P&R include ensuring
that personnel and readiness policies and programs are designed and
managed to improve standards of performance, economy, and efficiency,
which would facilitate visibility into its various programs, including
DOD fellowship and training-with-industry programs. Without a clear
definition of fellowship and training-with-industry programs, USD P&R’
s ability to maintain a reliable inventory of participants and thus
oversee the service obligations associated with these educational
fellowship and training-with-industry programs will remain limited.
With regard to the military departments’ required reports on their
annual reviews of the education and training-with-industry fellowship
programs, USD P&R has not provided specific instructions as to the
information the military departments should include. As noted
previously, these reports did not contain consistent and detailed
information on these programs. Service officials said that they would
benefit from having more detailed reporting guidelines to help
determine what information would be most useful for USD P&R. USD P&R
officials said that when they update their Instruction in late 2012,
they anticipate providing specifics to facilitate collection of more
consistent information on the number of fellows, on their assignments
during and after the fellowships, and on the timing of their returns
to their official duty stations. Detailed guidelines could better
position USD P&R to fulfill its oversight responsibility for
fellowship and training-with-industry policy, and to help ensure
service adherence to policies. Without USD P&R specifying in the DOD
instruction common reporting requirements for the annual reports, DOD
will continue to experience challenges in collecting consistent
information and developing a reliable inventory on these programs.
OSD Has Not Clearly Delineated Oversight Responsibilities for Its
Legislative Fellowship Program:
DOD’s Instruction 1322.06 does not delineate specific and clear roles
and responsibilities for overseeing the fellowship and training
programs for the Legislative Fellowship Program, and this absence of
delineations has in some cases resulted in mutually contradictory
assumptions by different OSD offices with respect to oversight
responsibilities. We have previously reported that having clearly
defined roles and responsibilities can be beneficial to address
management challenges.[Footnote 34] The absence of defined oversight
roles and responsibilities for the Legislative Fellowship Program has
created some conflicting perspectives for two separate offices within
OSD. For example, officials within the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs said that although they
assign DOD fellows to various congressional offices and serve as
liaisons between the fellows and Congress, they do not have policy
oversight responsibility for the program. However, officials within
USD P&R said that they have responsibility for all reporting
requirements for this program, but that otherwise the legislative
affairs office manages the program. Our questions about roles and
responsibilities concerning the Legislative Fellowship Program
elicited contradictory information from the two offices, with each
asserting that the other had policy oversight responsibility. Although
officials within USD P&R have subsequently revised their position and
said that they do have oversight responsibility, we note that this
important role is not clearly delineated in the DOD instruction. In
the absence of clearly delineated roles and responsibilities in DOD’s
governing instruction, OSD is at risk of not fulfilling its oversight
responsibilities. USD P&R officials stated that they agree with our
observation and indicated that they plan to address oversight roles
and responsibilities for legislative fellowships when they revise the
instruction in late 2012.
OSD Does Not Have Placement Criteria for Its Legislative Fellows:
The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs does not
have documented criteria for the placement of DOD legislative fellows
to congressional offices. We have previously reported35 that agencies
should assign employees to host organizations to make the best use of
their skills and help them to develop professionally while addressing
host organizations’ needs. However, officials in OSD’s legislative
affairs office said that the placement of DOD fellows with host
congressional committees or individual congressional member offices is
a complicated and very challenging process. These officials said that
placing DOD fellows with congressional offices involves balancing a
number of factors, such as (1) the fellows’ educational and career
needs; (2) the availability of fellows each year to a bipartisan and
bicameral assembly of congressional offices and members; and (3) any
specified interests of individual congressional members regarding a
requested fellow’s military service, educational background, and
particular field of specialization.[Footnote 36] While these
considerations help inform placement decisions, they do not enable DOD
to systematically decide and explain its rationale for decisions on
which congressional offices will receive DOD fellows. These officials
stated that their primary intent is to provide military officers a
broadening educational experience. In doing so, however, they have
found an additional challenge in meeting demand when placing DOD
legislative fellows in congressional offices because the number of
legislative fellows requested by congressional committees and members
has been exceeding the total number of available fellows, as shown in
table 3.
Table 3: Number of Congressional Requests for DOD Legislative Fellows
and the Number That DOD Provides, Academic Years 2009-2010 through
2011-2012:
Academic year[A]: 2009-2010;
Number of congressional requests for DOD fellows: 110;
Number of DOD fellows provided: 80;
Number of congressional requests not filled: 30.
Academic year[A]: 2010-2011;
Number of congressional requests for DOD fellows: 91;
Number of DOD fellows provided: 85;
Number of congressional requests not filled: 6.
Academic year[A]: 2011-2012;
Number of congressional requests for DOD fellows: 135;
Number of DOD fellows provided: 83;
Number of congressional requests not filled: 52.
Source: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs.
[A] The 12 month legislative fellowship typically begins in January
and ends in December, to correspond with the congressional cycle.
[End of table]
OSD legislative affairs officials said that because OSD does not have
documented placement criteria, decisions as to which congressional
offices receive DOD fellows are made on a case-by-case basis and are
ultimately a judgment call, which can lead to inconsistent dealings
with congressional offices. They said that they do their best to match
the educational needs of the DOD fellow with the needs of the
congressional office, but that there are not enough available fellows
to meet the full demand. They further stated that these decisions can
be difficult to defend to a congressional member who is denied a
request for a DOD fellow, and that it is always difficult to turn down
congressional requests. Without documented placement criteria, OSD’s
legislative affairs office will continue to have difficulty in
ensuring consistency in the department’s dealings with interested
committees and members of Congress requesting DOD fellows. Officials
in OSD’s legislative affairs office said that having documented
placement criteria would help in the decision-making process and would
better position the office to defend its decisions with congressional
members who were denied a request for a DOD fellow.
Military Services Are Not Well Positioned to Determine the Extent of
the Benefits from These Programs:
The military services believe that they derive benefits from their
fellowships and training-with-industry programs, but they are not well
positioned to determine the extent of these benefits for four main
reasons. First, not all of the services conduct periodic program
reviews, as required by their service guidance, for some or all of
their programs; and the few reviews that have been conducted have not
been comprehensive. For example, they do not ensure that the needs
that prompted the program and the goals of the program are being met.
Second, the services do not have clear guidance as to what qualifies
as a follow-on utilization tour, or criteria for when such a tour can
be postponed or waived, and this limits their ability to know the
extent they are deriving a return on their educational investment.
Third, the services do not know their overall program costs, including
both direct and indirect costs, and therefore it is difficult to know
whether these programs are cost-effective. Fourth, some of the
services do not have written agreements or memoranda of understanding
with the non-DOD host organizations providing the educational
opportunity that spell out both parties’ roles and responsibilities—-
thus contributing to unclear expectations about the DOD benefit to be
derived from these programs. Collectively, these limitations diminish
the services’ assurances about the benefits they derive from their
fellowship and training-with-industry programs. The services observed,
however, that they use certain other program management practices to
ensure that they derive benefits from these programs.
Services Have Not Conducted Periodic and Comprehensive Program Reviews:
While each of the services has taken some steps to review its
programs, none has conducted both periodic and comprehensive reviews
of its fellowship and training-with-industry programs. For some of the
programs, there is no requirement to conduct periodic program reviews.
With respect to fellowship programs, service review requirements vary,
and compliance with them has been uneven. Further, for those services
that have conducted program reviews, the reviews have not been
comprehensive and have not included assessments of the status of the
program against program goals. As a result, some services have limited
assurances that their fellowship or training-with-industry
opportunities meet desired program outcomes, address emerging mission
requirements, or provide the best venue for developing needed
personnel skills. We have previously reported on the importance of
having systematically planned evaluations of training and development
programs.[Footnote 37] In addition, evaluating programs through
periodic and comprehensive reviews enables an agency to identify
problems and improve a program, as needed. The services’ variance in
review requirements for these programs is shown in table 4.[Footnote
38]
Table 4: Military Service Requirement for Periodic Program Reviews:
Military service: Army;
Legislative fellowships must be reviewed: Yes;
Nonlegislative fellowships must be reviewed: Yes;
Training-with-industry must be reviewed: No;
Time frame for required review: The Army requires an annual review for
Legislative Fellowships and no less than every 3 years for non-
legislative fellowships.[A]
Military service: Navy;
Legislative fellowships must be reviewed: Yes;
Nonlegislative fellowships must be reviewed: Yes;
Training-with-industry must be reviewed: No;
Time frame for required review: The Navy requires an annual review for
Legislative and Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship Programs, and a
minimum of once every 2 years for other fellowships.[B]
Military service: Marine Corps;
Legislative fellowships must be reviewed: No[C];
Nonlegislative fellowships must be reviewed: Yes;
Training-with-industry must be reviewed: N/A;
Time frame for required review: Marine Corps requires nonlegislative
fellowship host organizations be reevaluated annually for
recertification and continued assignment of fellows.[D]
Military service: Air Force;
Legislative fellowships must be reviewed: Yes;
Nonlegislative fellowships must be reviewed: Yes;
Training-with-industry must be reviewed: No;
Time frame for required review: Air Force requires all nonlegislative
fellowships to be reviewed biennially.[E]
Source: GAO analysis of military service instructions.
[A] Army Regulation 621-7, Army Fellowship Programs and Army
Regulation 1-202, Army Congressional Fellowship Program.
[B] The annual reporting requirement in Bureau of Navy Personnel
Instruction 1560.21E, Legislative Fellows Program (Nov. 12, 2010)
corresponds to the requirement in the DOD instruction for an annual
report to USD P&R. See also, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations
Instruction 1590.79A, Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship (June 03,
2011), and Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction
1500.72G,Navy Politico-Military Fellowships, Graduate Education
Programs, and Community Sponsorship (June 22, 2010).
[C] The Marine Corps does not have a separate instruction for its
Legislative Fellowship Program. A Marine Corps official said that
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 1500.72G, Navy
Politico-Military Fellowships, Graduate Education Programs, and
Community Sponsorship (June 22, 2010), Marine Corps Order 1500.41A
(Aug. 20, 1996) Scholarship Program for Members of the Marine Corps,
Marine Corps Order1560.19E (Jun. 25, 2003) Advance Degree Program, and
Marine Corps Order 1520.9G (Jul 31, 2003) Special Education Program
govern the fellowship program.
[D] Marine Corps Order 1520.28B Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellows
Program (Oct. 22, 1996). The Marine Corps conducts its review through
briefings presented to senior leaders and from gathering feedback from
fellows. The Marine Corps plans to conduct a more formal review of the
program in April 2012.
[E] Air Force Instruction 36-2301, Developmental Education (July 16,
2010).
[End of table]
Of the service programs that require a periodic review, Navy officials
said that they conducted program reviews for their nonlegislative
[Footnote 39] and legislative programs, and Marine Corps officials
said they have conducted one nonlegislative program review. Two of the
services-—the Army and the Air Force—-have not fully conducted
periodic reviews of their programs as required in their program
guidance. Although the Army is required to review its nonlegislative
fellowships, it has not conducted reviews recently. In 2011, the Army
began reviewing a portion of one type of nonlegislative fellowship—-
the Senior Service College Fellowships—-and officials said they expect
to complete this portion of the review in early 2012, and to review
the other fellowship programs in the near future. Air Force officials,
on the other hand, informed us that their requirement for a biennial
review of fellowships is an error in their instruction, and they plan
to write this requirement out of the next version of the instruction.
Further, these officials said that the review requirement applies only
to graduate education programs—-not fellowships. Therefore, the Air
Force has not periodically reviewed its fellowship programs, although
Air Force officials said that information on fellowships is
incorporated into their annual process for designating educational and
developmental opportunities.
None of the services has comprehensively reviewed its programs. A
comprehensive review, as we have previously reported,[Footnote 40] may
include the following four elements: quantifiably measuring the extent
to which the program is meeting program goals; validating that
fellowships and training-with-industry programs meet current and
emerging requirements; incorporating feedback from program
participants and host organizations to improve the program; and
documenting the results of the review to enable the service to modify
its programs, as needed. However, we found that not all services are
including these four elements in their reviews, as described below:
* Using quantifiable performance measures for meeting their stated
goals for their programs. The services have not measured the extent to
which their programs are meeting their goals,[Footnote 41] because
they have not developed quantifiable performance measures for most of
their program goals. We have previously reported on the importance of
agencies developing and using performance measures to ensure
accountability and assess progress toward achieving results aligned
with goals.[Footnote 42] The services vary in the extent to which they
review their programs to measure against program goals. For example,
an Army official said that the Army has not assessed the program using
quantifiable performance measures for its legislative fellowship
program, but the official believed that a measure that tracks the
completion of utilization tours could be used to assess the extent to
which they are meeting the goal of having a pool of officers from
which some may be selected for future utilization in the field of
congressional liaison. Similarly, a Navy official with the Cyber
Federal Executive Fellowship Program said that the utilization tour
could be used as a performance measure for meeting the program’s
goals, but they plan to use it as a qualitative, not quantifiable,
performance measure. The Marine Corps Legislative and Commandant of
the Marine Corps Fellowship Programs have not created quantifiable
performance measures either, although officials said they use
qualitative measures, such as discussions with fellows and senior
leaders, to assess the programs. The Army and Air Force have taken
some steps to develop quantifiable measures for some programs. For
example, in 2011 the Army surveyed fellows in the Senior Service
College Fellowship Program to assess the extent to which these
fellowships met their objectives. The Air Force Fellowship Program
surveys its host organizations on the percentage of time the fellows
spend on the Air Force’s service-specific competencies—used by Air
Force officials as indicators that the program is meeting its goals
and objectives. However, the Air Force has not developed quantifiable
goals with which these survey results can be compared. Without
reviewing their programs to assess progress against program goals, the
services are limited in their ability to determine the effectiveness
of their programs.
* Validating that programs meet current or future mission
requirements. Some of the services have not periodically validated
that the fellowship or training-with-industry assignments continue to
address current or emerging mission requirements. The DOD instruction
states that the secretaries of the military departments are
responsible for ensuring that the current assignments using
fellowships and training-with-industry positions meet the intent of
the program and continue to meet military department and DOD
requirements or anticipated needs. We have reported that successful
organizations match training and development programs to their
specific needs and capabilities.[Footnote 43] While the Navy and the
Marine Corps have periodically reviewed their programs to ensure that
they meet current and emerging needs, the Army and the Air Force have
not. The Marine Corps has informally validated its programs through a
process that looks at the costs of the program, updates the list of
fellowship host organizations, and determines which fellowships are
available for the upcoming year. Although the Army’s instruction for
nonlegislative fellowships requires that each fellowship program be
reviewed for continued relevancy and to determine that it meets stated
criteria and objectives, the Army has not conducted this review
regularly. We note that Army officials stated that in their current
review of a portion of the Senior Service College fellowships that
they plan to revalidate the need for each or the uniqueness of each
host organization. While the Air Force has not revalidated that its
fellowships meet current or emerging needs through periodic program
reviews, it stated in its December 2011 report to USD P&R on
nonlegislative fellowships that program oversight and management
ensure validation that the programs fulfill a present need,
anticipated requirement, or future capability.
* Incorporating feedback. While all of the services have collected
some feedback from fellows and host organizations, they have not
consistently incorporated this feedback into their program reviews. We
have previously reported on the importance of agencies measuring
training participants’ reactions to and satisfaction with their
programs, and of measuring changes in their knowledge, skills, and
abilities after their participation in the programs.[Footnote 44] The
Army and the Air Force have conducted postfellowship surveys for some
fellowships to gather information on the fellows’ experiences. While
these surveys provide information on the experience of the fellowship,
they do not provide information on how the fellowship experience has
been of benefit to the fellows’ careers from a perspective of several
years later. We note that the Marine Corps has conducted surveys to
collect feedback from both recent and earlier fellows. In addition,
some of the services gather feedback from fellows on their experiences
through periodic reports to the program office. All of the services
monitor their fellows and collect feedback through intermittent
meetings with them. The Air Force also collects feedback from host
organizations through surveys and periodic site visits, and the Army
has recently conducted site visits to some of its host organizations.
Across the services, however, there has not been consistent
incorporation of feedback in program reviews.
* Documenting program accomplishments. Although some of the services
said that they document a portion of their review efforts, no service
has documented accomplishments that covered an entire program review,
or the entirety of its programs.[Footnote 45] We have previously
reported on the importance of using program evaluations to make fact-
based determinations of the program’s impact, and to reallocate or
redirect resources accordingly.[Footnote 46] Service officials said
they use or plan to use the information they collect to make changes
to their fellowship and training-with-industry programs. Army
officials said they plan to use their ongoing review of a portion of
the Senior Service College fellowships to refine the Army’s portfolio
of senior-level fellowships. Prior to the review, the Army had
identified problems with the fellowship programs primarily by
incident, either with the fellow or with the host organization. Marine
Corps officials stated they have used feedback from the fellows to
decide upon which host organizations to keep or to discontinue in
their portfolio. Air Force officials said they have analyzed feedback
from fellows and host organizations to make decisions on which host
organizations to discontinue when overall education funding was
reduced. Documentation of these results would enable the services to
demonstrate that they have conducted the review and what steps, if
any, they may take to improve the program.
Some of the services informed us that they intend to do more to review
their programs. For example, as part of its ongoing review the Army
plans to match fellows with host organizations that will enable them
to research issues identified by Army leadership as critical problems
facing the Army. A Navy official said that although the Navy has not
yet conducted its first review of the Cyber Federal Executive
Fellowship, it plans to survey 2011 fellows in the fall of 2012, a
year into their utilization tour, to assess how the fellowship
benefited their careers. Marine Corps officials said that they are
examining a more formal process to supplement their current informal
annual fellowship reevaluation practices. Without conducting periodic
and comprehensive performance reviews, the services’ ability to
determine the benefit they derive from fellowship and training-with-
industry programs will remain limited.
Services Do Not Have Clear Guidance on Utilization Tours:
The services inconsistently implement a DOD requirement[Footnote 47]
to have utilization tours—-assignments where program participants can
apply knowledge and skills gained through fellowship and training-with-
industry programs—-because they do not have clear guidance as to what
qualifies as a follow-on utilization tour, and they do not have
criteria for when to postpone or waive this requirement. After a
participant’s completion of the fellowship or training-with industry
opportunity, the services are expected to assign the participant to a
tour that enables him or her to make use of the newly gained skills,
knowledge, and abilities, according to DOD guidance.
Service officials described utilization tours to us as a benefit that
DOD gains from conducting its fellowship and training-with-industry
programs. For example, both Army fellowship policy documents and
officials with whom we spoke described utilization tours as a
mechanism for maximizing the benefit derived by the Army. Navy
officials described utilization tours as a way to receive a return on
their investment and to meet the intent of the programs, given that
they reinforce skills, promote continued learning, and serve to meet
the requirements of the Navy. Air Force policy documents and officials
described utilization tours as a way to ensure that officers use the
skills they have developed.
However, the services do not implement utilization tours for
fellowships consistently, either within or across services. For
example, within the same Air Force fellowship program, some fellows
have a mandatory utilization tour, while for others it is a
recommendation. According to Air Force officials, the decision as to
whether a utilization tour is mandatory or recommended is made by the
Air Force office responsible for fellowship policy on a case-by-case
basis at the time it initiates the fellowship. Air Force officials
said they do not have established criteria for determining whether a
utilization tour is mandatory or recommended. Similarly, the Army
requires utilization tours for some of its fellowship programs, such
as the legislative fellowship, but not for others. In contrast, the
Navy and the Marine Corps generally require utilization tours for all
of their fellowship programs, and all of the services generally
require utilization tours for their training-with-industry programs.
[Footnote 48]
Service officials said that inconsistency across the services is
attributable, in part, to the absence of a clear definition as to what
constitutes a follow-on utilization tour in the DOD instruction. A
Navy official said that the differences in how the services implement
utilization tours are a result of not having a clear definition of the
requirement. Similarly, Marine Corps officials described fulfilling
utilization tours as a judgment call, and one Marine Corps official
said there has been an internal debate as to what assignments should
count as utilization tours, and within what time frame such tours
should be assigned.
Also, the services’ postponement or waivers of the requirement to
perform utilization tours occur inconsistently, because the services
do not have criteria to determine when it is appropriate to postpone
or waive this requirement. As a result, the services have different
implementation practices for postponing or waiving the utilization
tour requirement. Generally, the services postpone or waive the
utilization tour requirement on a case-by-case basis. For example,
according to officials the Army postpones or waives the requirement
for most, but not all, of its fellowships. For one Army fellowship
program—-the Senior Service College Fellowship Program-—the former
Army Chief of Staff provided written guidance in 2010 indicating that
specific requirements for utilization tours upon completion of
fellowships should not be imposed. Army officials stated that the
utilization tour requirement was viewed as adding more stress and
burdens to the officers during a period of high operational tempo and
frequent deployments, and that utilization tours for these fellows
were viewed simply as a recommendation for postfellowship assignments.
In the case of one Navy fellowship program, on the other hand, Navy
guidance[Footnote 49] generally requires a utilization tour, and that a
high-level Navy Personnel Command official must approve any
exceptions; the regulation does not provide any criteria for such
exceptions. Service officials from all of the services stated that
they postpone assigning a utilization tour if the tour would interfere
with another career-advancing assignment, such as being selected for a
command position.
Some service officials said that improving the consistency of their
implementation of the utilization tour requirement could increase
assurances that they derive benefits from fellowship and training-with-
industry programs, even though their reasons for not requiring
utilization tours vary. Army officials informed us that they are
examining steps to better strategically link utilization tours with
the specific research focus of the fellow, and might begin to require
utilization tours for their Senior Service College fellows now that
they expect fewer Army officers to be deploying overseas. Navy
officials said they are hoping to develop a capability to better track
utilization tour completion to better ensure that they are getting a
good return on investment. Marine Corps officials said they also plan
to improve their process for tracking legislative fellowship
utilization tours in 2012. In addition, Air Force officials said that
implementing the utilization tour requirement more consistently would
benefit their service.
We have previously reported on the importance of having agency
training and development managers remove barriers that can impede the
use of knowledge and skills gained in training, so as to improve
performance on the job.[Footnote 50] Without having a common
understanding of the follow-on utilization tour requirement and its
waiver criteria, the services’ ability to determine the benefit they
derive from fellows and training-with-industry participants using
their newly developed or enhanced skills in these tours will remain
limited, and the circumstances surrounding each waiver will remain
uncertain. In addition, having assurances that utilization tour
requirements are being met can better position the services to justify
the use of appropriated funds for these programs and can better ensure
that the services are meeting the intent of the programs by filling
positions that meet current and anticipated needs.
Services Do Not Know Overall Program Costs and Cannot Determine Cost-
Effectiveness:
The services do not know the overall costs of their fellowship and
training-with-industry programs, including both direct and indirect
costs. We have previously reported on the importance of ensuring that
training and development efforts are cost-effective relative to their
anticipated benefits.[Footnote 51] Without having reviewed the overall
costs of the programs, the services cannot be assured that they are
cost-effective, and they will not have the information necessary to
aid decision makers in managing scarce training, development, and
education resources, particularly due to anticipated lower levels of
defense spending.[Footnote 52]
The services are not required by the DOD instruction to report on the
overall costs of the program. However, while not uniformly required
across the board, some of the service instructions do require
reviewing a portion of the costs of their respective programs. The
Army requires that host candidate organizations, within their
proposals to become hosts, present the estimated costs to the
service.[Footnote 53] As part of a periodic review for two of the Navy’
s fellowship programs—-the Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship and the
Federal Executive Fellowship-—the Navy reviews the cost of execution,
utilization, and any fiscal surpluses or constraints that might affect
future execution of the program, to help inform future decisions about
it.[Footnote 54] For one of its fellowship programs-—the Commandant of
the Marine Corps Fellowships—-the Marine Corps requires that a cost
estimate is determined for tuition, fees, and travel costs to aid in
budget planning.[Footnote 55] One Air Force instruction[Footnote 56]
requires that all fellowships be reviewed for their cost efficiency,
but, as previously mentioned, Air Force officials stated that this
requirement to review fellowships is an error in the Instruction.
The services know some of the direct costs associated with their
fellowship programs, such as the tuition and fees paid to the
universities and think tanks that host fellows,[Footnote 57] but not
all of them. Service officials said that the tuition or fee paid to a
host organization was used for the administrative, academic, and
technological support provided to the fellow, as well as for the
facilities and resources at the host organization. Some of the direct
costs of the program include those associated with travel, research,
and orientation. We collected information from the services on the
tuition or fee amounts paid to host organizations for fellowships. We
estimated that for the academic year 2010-2011, the services paid
approximately $2.9 million in tuition and fees for approximately 270
fellows, of which the Army paid approximately $1.2 million; the Navy
paid approximately $208,000; the Marine Corps paid approximately
$378,000; and the Air Force paid approximately $1.1 million.[Footnote
58] The services paid a tuition or fee to more than half of their
fellowship host organizations.
For two of the services, officials said that knowing the direct costs
of their fellowship and training-with-industry programs is difficult,
given that the programs are financially managed by several different
organizations. For example, funding for the cost of a fellowship may
come from the proponent that sponsors a fellowship, or from general
student and educational funding, or from other components, such as the
National Guard or Reserve, depending on the fellowship and the
service. In addition, the costs of the program may extend across more
than 1 fiscal year, as the programs are based on academic or calendar
rather than fiscal years.
Service officials said that they do not know the indirect costs of the
programs, such as administrative support, faculty, and permanent
change of station costs, and that there are several challenges in
determining those costs. In addition, some officials said that for
their programs indirect costs may include the salary and benefits of
the officer while participating in the fellowship or training-with-
industry program.[Footnote 59] Service officials said that the
indirect costs of the fellowship are not easily identified. For
example, an Army official said the Army does not have a financial
management system that would allow it to distinguish the
administrative and faculty costs directed toward Army War College
students from those directed toward fellows. For many of the programs,
management and faculty support of fellows and training-with-industry
participants is an additional duty, not the sole duty, of a service
official.
Without knowing the direct and indirect costs of these programs, the
services are unable to compare the cost-effectiveness of attending one
type of educational opportunity versus that of another type. Service
officials said they experience similar challenges in knowing the
overall costs of servicemembers attending military schools, or other
professional development and training opportunities. Some service
officials said that having more information about the overall costs of
the programs would be beneficial because it would better inform them
on how many fellowship and training-with-industry opportunities they
can afford to devote educational and training resources to, and would
provide better information for budgeting.
Some of the Services Have Not Established or Reviewed Memoranda of
Understanding with Host Organizations:
Some services have not established or reviewed agreements or memoranda
of understanding[Footnote 60] that would outline the responsibilities
of the services and the think tank, university, and federal agency
host organizations for fellowships, but several service officials we
interviewed said this would be a best practice to incorporate. We have
previously reported on the importance of having management controls to
provide accountability for the use of government resources, and to
outline the responsibilities of each party.[Footnote 61] We have also
reported on the importance of having policies and procedures to ensure
that training and development efforts and expectations are discussed
and understood by managers, supervisors, employees, training
coordinators, and others.[Footnote 62]
[Side bar: The Atlantic Council is a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank
that focuses on transatlantic cooperation and international security.
The Atlantic Council receives some funding from federal agencies
through contracts and grants. Each of the services sent one fellow to
the Atlantic Council in academic year 2010-2011. The Army, Navy, and
Air Force paid $17,500 per fellow and the Marine Corps paid $25,000,
for a total of $77,500 paid in fees. An Atlantic Council
representative told us that the Marine Corps paid a higher fee because
it was a newer program, and that they planned to increase the fee for
the other three services. The Navy and Air Force had memoranda of
understanding with the Atlantic; the Army and Marine Corps did not.
Both the Navy's and the Air Force's memoranda outlined what was
expected of the Atlantic Council in return for the fee. Only the
Navy's memorandum included protections against fellows engaging in
activities that would constitute a conflict of interest, and an
approximation of the fee. Source: GAO. End of side bar]
The requirement for having written memoranda of understanding between
each party varies across the services and by the type of training
involved. DOD’s Instruction 1322.06 does not require written memoranda
of understanding for fellowships, but it does require a written
agreement for training-with-industry programs. The instruction states
that before the start of a training-with-industry assignment there
must be a written agreement shared by the private sector host, the
employee, and the DOD component concerned. The services63 generally
established these required agreements with host corporations. Although
not required by the instruction for fellowships, the services have
varied in the extent to which they have established memoranda of
understanding with host organizations. The Army and the Marine Corps
have established such memoranda for a small proportion of their
fellowships.64 In contrast, the Navy and the Air Force have
established memoranda of understanding with most of their fellowship
host organizations, stating that these documents help them to ensure
that the host organization understands the roles and responsibilities
of each party as well as the key learning objectives of the program.
[Side bar: The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
is a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank that focuses on national
security issues. CSIS conducts research, analysis, and policy
initiatives on topics such as defense and security and transnational
challenges. According to its 2010 annual report, CSIS received 16
percent of its operating revenue from government sources. For the 2010-
2011 academic year, the Army, the Army National Guard, the Navy, and the
Marine Corps each sent one fellow, and the Air Force sent two fellows,
to CSIS. Each service paid $25,000 per fellow, for a total of $150,000
paid in fees. The Navy and Air Force had memoranda of understanding with
CSIS; the Army and Marine Corps did not. Both the Navy's and the Air
Force's memoranda outlined what was expected of CSIS in return for the
fee. The Navy's also listed the fee to be paid to CSIS and included
protections against fellows engaging in activities that would
constitute a conflict of interest. Source: GAO. [End of side bar]
The services have also varied in the extent to which service guidance
require these documents to be reviewed. The respective guidance for
one Navy and one Army fellowship program require that memoranda of
understanding be reviewed.[Footnote 65] More specifically, the Navy’s
Federal Executive Fellowship requires that its memoranda of
understanding be reviewed every 2 years; and the Commandant of the
U.S. Army War College is required to review and make recommendations
on all fellowship proposals and memoranda of understanding for the
Senior Service College Fellowships to ensure that the senior-level
educational criteria are met. However, since the Army does not have
memoranda of understanding for a majority of its fellowships, such
reviews have rarely occurred.
[Side bar: The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is a nonpartisan,
nonprofit think tank that conducts research on foreign policy and
national security issues. Each year the Chiefs of Staff of the Army
and the Air Force, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant
of the Marine Corps nominate senior officers for the fellowship. The
fee for each service for the 2010-2011 academic year was $20,000 per
fellow, for a total of $80,000 paid in fees. The Air Force had a
memorandum of understanding with CFR, and the Army, Navy, and Marine
Corps did not. Navy officials told us that they were developing a
memorandum with CFR. Although the Air Force memorandum did not include
the amount of the fee, it outlined what was expected of CFR in return
for the fee. Source: GAO. [End of side bar]
Several service officials cited establishing and reviewing memoranda
of understanding as a good management practice. One Navy official said
that establishing and reviewing memoranda of understanding is a best
practice that should be encouraged, saying these agreements would
clear up any misunderstanding about the structure of the individual
program. Another Navy official had positive comments about
establishing and reviewing memoranda of understanding, saying that
establishing these memoranda constitutes a good practice because they
define roles and responsibilities, provide protections for ethics and
payments, and make clear the objectives of the fellowship.
Furthermore, the Army and the Marine Corps both agreed that
establishing and reviewing memoranda of understanding with host
organizations would be beneficial. Army officials said they plan to
establish and update the memoranda for all their fellowships and to
update their policy accordingly. Army officials also said that these
memoranda would provide clarity on the costs of fellowships each year
and thus facilitate better accounting and budgeting for their program.
Further, Army officials said the memoranda would provide clarity on
what makes each host organization unique, the purpose of the
fellowship, and the roles and responsibilities of the Army and the
host organization.
Memoranda of understanding serve as a management control and document
key information and expectations between the service and the host
organization. As a feature of documenting key information and
expectations, memoranda of understanding can provide protections
against potential conflicts of interest. Several Navy memoranda of
understanding we reviewed contained provisions that pertained to
fellows working on certain federal projects. For example, a memorandum
of understanding for the Federal Executive Fellowships says that the
fellow may not work on any contract or procurement studies that would
violate federal standards of conduct, especially those pertaining to
conflicts of interest. Without establishing and reviewing these
memoranda, the services cannot be assured that expectations, including
safeguards against potential conflicts of interests and criteria for
appropriate fees and projects, are clearly understood by the host
organizations and the fellowship participants.
The Services Use Certain Management Practices as a Means of Obtaining
Benefits from Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs:
While the military services are not well positioned to determine the
extent of their benefit from fellowship and related training programs,
service officials believe that they do obtain benefits from these
programs. For example, officials said these programs provide officers
with a career-broadening developmental experience; enable them to
conduct research on topics that are important to the military; help
them develop critical and strategic thinking skills; help them gain
perspectives from the civilian sector; build civilian-military
relationships; and develop more responsive leaders during times of
significant change in the global security environment. Officials also
believe that the use of fellowship and training-with-industry programs
affords DOD flexibility in meeting new or emerging educational and
training needs that sometimes cannot be met within the military
educational structure—for example, in the rapidly developing new
approaches and techniques of the cyber security area. Service
officials said they use several program management practices to
enhance the benefits derived from fellowship and training-with-
industry programs, including the following:
* Competitive selection: Service officials said that having a highly
competitive selection process that rank-orders officers who are
eligible to compete for many fellowship and training-with-industry
opportunities helps to produce a selection of highly qualified
officers for these opportunities. Officials said the process better
ensures that the right officer is selected for a given fellowship or
training-with-industry program, which ultimately benefits the
officer’s career as well as accomplishes DOD’s mission though the
experience gained. In our review of the selection process, we found
that the preferences of career field managers, senior leaders, and the
officers themselves were considered, for many of the services, in the
selection of officers for fellowship or training-with-industry
programs.
* Orientation and ethics counseling: Service officials said that
conducting orientation before the start of a fellowship helps to
prepare fellows for their program by introducing them to key contacts,
program requirements, and expectations for the year. In addition,
officials stated, the ethics briefings given at orientation and
availability of subsequent counseling provide assurance that fellows
understand what is expected of them and are informed as to how to
handle potential conflicts of interest. We reviewed seven ethics
briefings and found them to contain essential elements, such as
guidance on accepting gifts and information on contacting DOD legal
officials with questions about ethics issues. (See app. IV for our
review of these briefings.)
* Research: Service officials said they have assurances that they
receive a benefit by requiring many of the fellows to conduct research
and write papers on topics that are important to each respective
service, as identified by senior leaders. At orientation, some of the
services have senior leaders speak about emerging topics that could be
better researched to benefit the service. For academic year 2010-2011,
for example, DOD fellows researched enhancing DOD’s acquisition and
logistics processes, as well as countering irregular threats such as
piracy.
Service obligations: Service officials informed us that they had
general procedures to provide some measure of benefits obtained when
officers complete their additional service obligation as required by
statute or DOD guidance for participating in certain fellowships or
training-with-industry programs—that is, that the fellow will serve in
the military for a period at least three times the length of the
period of the fellowship education or training-with-industry
opportunity.[Footnote 66]
We found that all of the services generally have (1) policies on the
requirement; (2) special coding capabilities for personnel record-
keeping and monitoring; (3) a formalized waiver process to better
ensure that servicemembers do not retire or separate without
fulfilling service obligations; and (4) the potential ability to
recoup certain educational costs. While many service officials
asserted that these practices increase the likelihood that benefits
are derived from fellowships and training-with-industry opportunities,
some also said they could still improve upon these practices to have
greater assurances that DOD derives benefits from these programs.
Conclusions:
According to DOD, the intent for fellowships and training-with-
industry programs is to help fulfill a present need, anticipated
requirement, or future capability that contributes to the
effectiveness of the department’s mission. DOD has used these programs
for at least 1,797 mid- to senior-level officers across the services
over the past 5 fiscal years. Even as the war in Afghanistan is
winding down and reductions in personnel end-strengths occur,
servicemembers will still be deployed globally, and DOD will have to
carefully balance operational assignments with identified needs for
professional military education, both within DOD’s professional
military educational system and outside of DOD, in fellowship and
training with industry programs. However, until OSD gains improved
visibility into these programs and the military services are better
positioned to know that they achieve their intended benefits and are
cost-effective, DOD will continue to face challenges in ensuring that
it is deriving sufficient value from these programs.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve oversight and management of DOD’s fellowship and training-
with-industry programs, we are making 11 recommendations to the
Secretary of Defense.
To help ensure compliance with DOD Instruction 1322.06 and thus
enhance DOD’s visibility over all of the fellowship and training-with-
industry programs, and to promote a shared understanding across the
military services of what is expected in meeting the instruction, the
Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness to take the following five actions:
(1) develop a mission statement that clearly defines the respective
purposes of the legislative and nonlegislative fellowship and training-
with-industry programs to be in a better position to know the extent
to which desired program outcomes are being achieved;
(2) more consistently enforce the DOD instruction’s requirement on the
submission of annual reviews from the military services on these
programs; and;
(3) collaborate with the military departments to ensure that each
service has designated an office to be responsible for compiling
information on the legislative and nonlegislative fellowship and
training-with-industry programs for the annual reports required in the
DOD instruction.
In addition, to enable DOD to develop a more reliable inventory for
these programs, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness should:
(4) clarify in the DOD instruction the definition of a fellowship; and;
(5) specify in the DOD instruction common reporting requirements for
the annual report, and clarify which fellowship and training-with-
industry opportunities should be included in this report, to
facilitate the collection of consistent information on these programs
across the military services.
Additionally, to facilitate OSD’s ability to perform its oversight
responsibility for the legislative fellowship program and to better
ensure consistency in the department’s dealings with interested
committees and members of Congress, the Secretary of Defense should
direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs to
take the following two actions:
(6) clearly delineate in the DOD instruction the roles and
responsibilities for overseeing DOD’s Legislative Fellowship Program,
and;
(7) develop documented placement criteria for legislative fellows.
Finally, to better position DOD to determine the extent of the
benefits it derives from legislative and nonlegislative fellowship and
training-with-industry programs and better assess whether fellowship
and training-with-industry programs offer the best venues for
developing needed personnel skills, the Secretary of Defense should
direct the Secretaries of the Department of the Army, the Department
of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force to take the following
four actions:
(8) perform periodic and comprehensive program reviews that assess the
progress using quantifiable measures, validate that programs continue
to meet current or emerging needs, incorporate feedback from program
participants and host organizations, and document the results of
reviews;
(9) clarify guidance for determining what qualifies as a follow-on
utilization tour, and establish criteria to determine when a
utilization tour is needed or, conversely, when it can be postponed or
waived;
(10) determine the direct costs of these programs by periodically
obtaining and analyzing overall direct program costs, and explore the
feasibility of estimating indirect program costs; and
(11) establish and periodically review fellowship written agreements
or memoranda of understanding to document key information and
expectations between the services and the host organizations, such as
fellowship objectives, criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of
fees or tuition charged to the military departments, and criteria for
evaluating the appropriateness of the projects involved.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the
11 recommendations we made to improve OSD oversight and strengthen the
military services’ management of its fellowships and training-with-
industry programs. DOD also outlined actions that it plans to take for
each recommendation, which it stated will improve the issues we
identified in the report. DOD’s comments appear in their entirety in
appendix V. We are encouraged by the department’s action plans that
carry the intent to implement our recommendations. For example, we
made 7 recommendations to OSD designed to enhance OSD’s oversight and
visibility over these programs, for which OSD provided its intended
actions such as making planned revisions to its instruction governing
these programs by including a mission statement, a standard format for
the military services to follow when completing the required annual
report, and a date when this report is due to OSD—all actions we
believe meet the intent of these recommendations. We also made 4
recommendations to the military service secretaries to strengthen its
management of these programs, which again OSD provided a series of
steps it plans to take in response to our recommendations. OSD’s
action plans included such steps as working with the military services
to develop qualitative or quantitative measures that the department
believes will best meet the services needs for these programs. Again,
we are encouraged by the department’s action plans as stated in OSD’s
comments to our draft report in meeting the intent of our recommended
actions to strengthen these fellowship and training-with-industry
programs. Finally, DOD provided technical comments, which we
considered and incorporated where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense;
the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the Secretaries of the Army,
Navy, and Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. This
report will also be available at no charge on our website at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors are
listed in appendix VI.
Signed by:
Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
List of Committees
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon:
Chairman:
The Honorable Adam Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young:
Chairman:
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the statutory provisions that authorize the Department of
Defense (DOD) fellowship and training-with-industry programs, we
reviewed and assessed relevant laws and regulations that authorize and
govern these programs. We also interviewed officials with the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD
P&R) and attorneys from OSD’s Office of General Counsel for their
perspectives on laws and regulations governing these programs and
obtained written responses from OSD General Counsel on these
authorities.
To determine the extent of OSD’s visibility over these programs, we
obtained and assessed DOD instructions and service guidance governing
its fellowship and training-with-industry programs to determine the
policy oversight responsibility and other requirements. We interviewed
officials from USD P&R and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Legislative Affairs to obtain information about their roles and
responsibilities with respect to the Legislative Fellowship Program.
We also interviewed officials from USD P&R with knowledge of the
service reporting requirements from the DOD instruction on fellowships
and training-with-industry programs. We collected available service
reports that corresponded to these requirements, and assessed the
extent to which USD P&R has established guidelines for information to
include in these reports. We obtained information on the extent to
which USD P&R was aware of the services’ compliance with statutory and
regulatory requirements, such as the service obligation commitments
and reporting requirements. Also, we assessed the extent to which USD
P&R had a complete inventory of its fellowship and training-with-
industry programs. We collected data on the number of military
officers[Footnote 67] and the types of fellowship and training-with-
industry programs from each of the military services and from OSD. We
relied primarily on data from the military services, as they were able
to provide more detailed information on these programs. To assess the
reliability of each of the military services’ program data, we
obtained information on (1) the systems used to maintain their data
and these systems’ ability to record and report on these data, and (2)
the quality control measures in place to ensure that the data were
reliable for our reporting purposes. We also interviewed some service
officials who were responsible for compiling these data. We identified
some data limitations within these data and cross referenced with
other documentation where available. We found the fellowship and
training-with-industry data provided to us by the services to be
sufficiently reliable for providing contextual information on the
minimum number of participants; however, these data do not allow us to
provide the actual totals.
To determine the extent to which the military services are able to
determine that they derive benefits from these programs, we obtained
and assessed service guidance, collected and reviewed information on
service processes and practices used to manage their programs, and
interviewed service officials. We collected and analyzed information
on the extent to which the services reviewed their programs, including
completion of periodic program reviews and whether the reviews
assessed the program against program goals using quantifiable
performance measures; validated that the program continued to address
current or emerging mission requirements; incorporated feedback from
program participants or host organizations; and documented the results
of the review. We collected data and information on utilization tours
and on the extent to which the fellows are assigned to them. We also
collected information on the extent to which the services tracked the
costs of these programs and established and maintained memoranda of
understanding with host organizations. We obtained information from
each of the military services on the tuition or fee paid to fellowship
host organizations for fellowships in academic year 2010-2011.
[Footnote 68] We also obtained and evaluated seven ethics briefings
that DOD provided to fellows and training-with-industry participants
prior to the start of their selected program with a non-DOD host
organization. We identified the key elements in these briefings and
evaluated them for comprehensiveness. In doing so, our Office of
General Counsel staff from the Ethics Office—-an office that provides
guidance to our employees on ethics, conflicts of interest,
impairments to independence, and related conduct rules and issues-—
reviewed and assessed the briefings we obtained from the military
services. We also selected and interviewed a non-probability sample of
four legislative fellows and six think tank fellows[Footnote 69] to
obtain a firsthand understanding about the benefits of these
educational and training opportunities from the perspective of the
officer. We selected fellows from each service who were either current
or had recently completed the fellowship at the time of our
interviews, who were available for interviews; and who were situated
in proximity to the Washington, D.C., area.
We selected fellows from all four services and from a variety of
different host organizations, focusing on think tanks and on
legislative fellows in response to the interest expressed by Senate
Armed Services Committee staff. In addition, we interviewed a non-
probability sample of nine non-DOD host organizations to obtain their
perspectives on the educational benefits provided to military
officers. We selected host organizations that were hosting a fellow at
the time of our interviews; that were available for interviews; and
that were situated in proximity to the Washington, D.C., area. To
provide more in-depth examples of think tank fellowships, we selected
three of the host organizations that hosted a fellow from each of the
services and reported on the fees associated with the fellowships, and
on the extent to which the services established memoranda of
understanding with those organizations.
We visited or contacted the following organizations during our review:
Office of the Secretary of Defense:
* Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness;
* Office of the Deputy General Counsel;
* Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs;
* National Defense University.
Department of the Army:
* Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Military Personnel Policy;
* Congressional Operations Division;
* Combined Arms Center;
* Department of Academic Affairs, Army War college;
* Interagency Student Division;
* Leadership Development Division;
* Senior Leaders Division;
* Strategic Leadership Division;
* Retirements and Separations Division.
Department of the Navy:
* Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Military Personnel Policy;
* Education Branch;
* Distribution Management;
* Graduate Education and Training Placement;
* Information Dominance Corp;
* Legislative Liaison Office;
* Office of Supply Corps Personnel.
United States Marine Corps:
* Congressional Fellows Program Office;
* Marine Corps University;
* Officer Assignments Branch.
Department of the Air Force:
* Congressional Support Branch;
* Colonel Management Office;
* Force Development;
* Fellowships Program Office;
* Developmental Education Branch;
* Officer Promotions, Appointments, and Selective Continuation Branch;
* Learning Division;
* Acquisitions Career Management;
* Air Force Research Institute, Air University.
Host Organizations:
* American Enterprise Institute;
* Atlantic Council;
* Brookings Institution;
* Center for New American Security;
* Center for Strategic and International Studies;
* Council on Foreign Relations;
* Institute of World Politics;
* Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies;
* Washington Institute for Near East Studies.
We conducted this performance review from March 2011 through April
2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End o9f section]
Appendix II: Life-cycle Phases of a Fellowship Program
For each DOD fellowship program, there are various phases that
comprise the program, depending on its life-cycle as shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: Fellowship Program Life-cycle:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Fellowship Life-cycle:
1) Identify current or emerging need;
2) Establish fellowship opportunity;
3) Select fellows;
4) Start fellowship;
5) Monitor fellows;
6) Complete fellowship:
* start serving service obligation and utilization tour;
7) Review fellowship need and experience.
Source: GAO analysis of service information.
[End of figure]
Typical phases of a life-cycle for fellowships are as follows:
1. Different organizations within each service identify present and
emerging needs of the service that the officers should be educated in
and trained on. For example, a service identifies an emerging need for
more cyber security based on recent events.
2. The service policy or program offices establish the fellowship
opportunity that provides the training and skills to meet the
identified need. For example, once the cyber security emerging need
was identified, the Navy policy office established a fellowship
program with leading organizations in that field outside of DOD.
3. Generally, the personnel command or center selects officers to
participate in the fellowships through a competitive selection process
that ranks eligible officers for selection.
4. The fellows start their fellowship with a university, think tank,
corporation, federal agency, or congressional committee or member
office, generally with DOD or the service providing orientation and
ethics counseling.
5. During the fellowship, the program office with primary
responsibility for the fellowship monitors the fellows’ progress,
assisting them, when applicable, with research associated with the
fellowship.
6. At the completion of some fellowships, the fellows are generally
required to submit a research paper or article. After completion, the
fellow’s personnel command or center is responsible for assigning the
participant to the postfellowship utilization tour, and for ensuring
the fellow does not separate or retire from the military before
completing the service obligation.
7. Reviewing the fellowship program is generally conducted by either
the policy office or the program office. The review considers whether
there are any necessary changes to incorporate into the program for
the upcoming year.
Although we discussed fellowships in terms of a life-cycle, the life-
cycle for training-with-industry programs is similar to that of
fellowships.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Military Service Guidance on Fellowship and Training-
with-Industry Programs:
The military services each have their own guidance or regulations that
covers fellowships and training-with-industry programs, as shown in
table 5.
Table 5: Military Service Guidance on Fellowships and Training-with-
Industry Programs:
Army:
Army Regulation 621-7: Army Fellowships and Scholarships (Aug. 8 1997)
Army Regulation 1-202: Army Congressional Fellowship Program (May 26,
2000);
Army Regulation 621-1: Training of Military Personnel at Civilian
Institutions (Aug. 28, 2007).
Navy:
Bureau of Navy Personnel Instruction 1560.21E: Navy Legislative
Fellows Program (Nov. 12, 2010);
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 1500.72G:
Navy Politico-Military Fellowships, Graduate Education Programs and
Community Sponsorship (June 22, 2010);
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 1500.79A: Cyber
Federal Executive Fellowship (June 03, 2011);
Navy Supply System Command Instruction 1520.7: Training With Industry
Program.
Marine Corps:
Marine Corps Order 1520.28B:
Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellows Program (Oct. 22, 1996).
Air Force:
Air Force Instruction 36-2301: Developmental Education (July 16, 2010);
Air Force Instruction 36-2302: Professional Development (Advanced
Academic Degrees and Professional Continuing Education) (July 11,
2001);
Air Force Instruction 90-403: Air Force Legislative Fellows Program
(Jan. 17, 2001);
Air Force Instruction 36-2639: Education with Industry Program (May
22, 2009).
Source: The military services.
[End of table]
Appendix IV: Ethics Guidance Provided to Fellows:
DOD legal officials presented ethics briefings to fellows during their
orientation to the fellowship program. Each service provided a
multiple-day orientation to fellows prior to the start of the
fellowship and included a segment that covered ethics issues. Some
services provided a general ethics briefing to all fellowship program
participants at one time, and other services provided the ethics
briefing separately to each fellowship program. Fellows participating
in the Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowship Program received two
ethics briefings, one from their service and the other at the
Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowship Program orientation.
In consultation with GAO’s Ethics Office, we identified key elements
that would provide fellows with guidance on potential ethical issues
and conflicts of interest they may face during their fellowship with a
non-DOD host organization. We obtained seven examples of ethics
briefings: two from the Army, two from the Navy, one from the Air
Force, one from the Marine Corps, and one from the Secretary of
Defense Corporate Fellowship Program. The key elements in the ethics
briefings included:
* Relevant laws and DOD policies, including the Joint Ethics
Regulation (JER), DOD 5500.7-R, the Standards of Ethical Conduct for
Executive Branch Employees 5 C.F.R. Part 2635, and relevant sections
of 18 United States Code, Chapter 11, Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts of
Interest.
* Standards of Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch Employees 5 C.F.R.
Part 2635 include:
- Conflicts of interest;
- Acceptance of gifts;
- Unauthorized commitments purporting to bind the government;
- Using public office for private gain;
- Seeking outside employment.
Some of the briefings provided guidance on teaching, speaking, and
writing, such as guidance on the proper use of disclaimers in those
activities for which the opinions of the fellow do not represent DOD,
and guidance on being compensated for those activities. For example,
fellows were instructed not to take compensation for teaching,
speaking, and writing if the activity was undertaken as part the fellow’
s official position, or if the topic dealt with an ongoing or
announced policy, program, or operation of DOD. In addition, some
briefings provided guidance on engaging in political activities. For
example, fellows were instructed that they were not permitted to use
official authority or influence for interfering with an election; to
be a candidate for civil office except as authorized; to participate
in partisan political management, campaigns, speeches, articles, or
conventions; or to promote or attend political dinners or fundraising
events as an official representative of the Armed Forces. Furthermore,
DOD provided the fellows with a point of contact for future questions
and advice.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Personnel and Readiness:
4000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000:
April 16, 2012:
Ms. Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
United States Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Farrell:
This is the Department of Defense's (DoD) response to the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Report, GAO-12-367, "Military
Education: Improved Oversight and Management Needed for DOD's
Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs," dated March 16, 2012.
The Department concurs with the recommendations as stated in the GAO
report. We reviewed the comments from the collateral action offices
and have summarized their suggestions coupled with the agreed-to
actions that the Department believes will improve the areas identified
in the report.
I thank you for your review of these programs and your assistance in
making them more productive and effective for the Department. Should
GAO have questions in the future, my point of contact, Ms. Alfreda
Lewis, can be reached at (703) 697-4625 or freda.lewis@osd.mil.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Virginia S. Penrod:
Deputy Assistant Secretary:
(Military Personnel Policy)
Enclosure: DoD Comments.
[End of letter]
GAO Draft Report Dated March 16, 2012:
GAO-12-367 (GAO Code 351606):
"Military Education: Improved Oversight And Management Needed For
DOD's Fellowship And Training-With-Industry Programs"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to
develop a mission statement that clearly defines the respective
purposes of the legislative and non-legislative fellowship and
training-with-industry programs to be in a better position to know the
extent to which desired program outcomes are being achieved.
DoD Response: Concur.
DoD Action Plan: The mission statement will be developed by OUSD(P&R)
Readiness(TR&S) staff and circulated to the Services for Coordination
and incorporated in the next change of the DoD Instruction 1322.06.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to more
consistently enforce the DOD Instruction regarding the submission of
annual reviews from the military services on these programs.
DoD Response: Concur.
DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction contains a
format for the Services to follow when completing their annual reports
which will provide consistency of information across Services. The
current revision of the Instruction also clearly identifies exactly
what needs to be incorporated into the report and the reporting chain
for the report. The Navy Medical Corps use quarterly or semi-annual
training evaluations to ensure students are meeting defined
requirements. The Department supports any internal reporting structure
the Services deem sufficient as long as the results are incorporated
in the Annual report required by the Instruction.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to
collaborate with the Military Departments to ensure that each service
has designated an office to be responsible for compiling information
on the legislative and non-legislative fellowship and training-with-
industry programs for the annual reports required in the DOD
Instruction.
DoD Response: Concur.
DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction now requests
this information be provided to OUSD(P&R) MPP(OEPM) staff. The
Department of the Navy's plan includes each corps chief's office be
responsible for compiling their information on non-clinical
fellowships/training with industry programs. The office with the
largest number of such programs could be designated to receive,
compile and send this information to higher authority. Army G3/5/7
will officially task Army Human Resource Command via directive memo to
provide program information to OSD IAW DoDI 1336.22.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness should clarify in the DOD
Instruction the definition of a fellowship.
DoD Response: Concur.
DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction now provides
a detailed definition of a fellowship to include a definition for
Legislative versus non-legislative Fellowships. Services will comment
on the draft DoDI in a formal coordination process before the
Instruction is signed into policy.
Recommendation 5: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
should specify in the DOD Instruction common reporting requirements
for the annual report, and clarify which fellowship and training-with-
industry opportunities should be included in this report, to
facilitate the collection of consistent information on these programs
across the military services.
DoD Response: Concur.
DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction contains a
format for the Services to follow when completing their annual reports
which will provide consistency of information across Services. The
current revision of the Instruction also clearly identifies exactly
what needs to be incorporated into the report and the reporting chain
for the report and when it is due to OSD. Services will officially
comment on the draft Instruction to include the report format before
the Instruction is signed into policy.
Recommendation 6: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs to
clearly delineate in the DOD Instruction the roles and
responsibilities for overseeing DOD's Legislative Fellowship
Program.
DoD Response: Concur.
DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction directs the
ASD(LA) to develop criteria detailing how their office assigns
Legislative Fellows to the Hill and how they monitor the Fellows
activities during the year. The final DoD Instruction will direct the
ASD(LA) to ensure that Legislative Fellows return from the Hill after
the completion of their fellowship.
Recommendation 7: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs to
develop documented placement criteria for legislative fellows.
DoD RESPONSE: Concur.
DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction directs the
ASD(LA) to develop a criteria on how their office assigns the
Legislative Fellows to the Hill. The ASD(LA) will also monitor the
activities of the Legislative Fellows during the year.
Recommendation 8: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretaries of the Department of the Army, the Department
of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force to perform periodic
and comprehensive program reviews that assess the progress using
quantifiable measures, validate that programs continue to meet current
or emerging needs, incorporate feedback from program participants and
host organizations, and document the results of reviews.
DoD Response: Concur.
DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction directs the
Secretaries of the Military Departments to conduct an annual review of
their respective programs. The Department will work with the Services
in developing both qualitative or quantitative measure(s) that best
meet the Services needs. Navy Medical Community currently evaluates
their programs annually as they determine whether the program meets
the needs of the specific corps to include training and content. If
not, the program is disapproved for selection by the Navy.
Recommendation 9: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretaries of the Department of the Army, the Department
of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force to clarify guidance
for determining what qualifies as a follow-on utilization tour, and
establish criteria to determine when a utilization tour is needed or,
conversely, when it can be postponed or waived.
DoD Response: Concur.
DoD Action Plan: The Department will release a Memorandum to the
Services requesting an outline of their follow-on utilization tour as
well as any existing or new criteria that identifies when a
utilization is needed or when it can be postponed or waived; and who
in the Service has the specific authority to make the decision.
Although a follow-on utilization tour is preferred, there may be
instances that require movement of the recently trained member, for
example, to an operational or overseas assignment based upon immediate
need.
Recommendation 10: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretaries of the Department of the Army, the Department
of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force to determine the
direct costs of these programs by periodically obtaining and analyzing
overall direct program costs, and explore the feasibility of
estimating indirect program costs.
DoD Response: Concur.
DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction contains a
format for the Services to follow when completing their annual reports
which will provide consistency of information across Services to
include the number military and civilian participants in each program
and the estimated costs (to include training, salaries, travel, etc.)
of the program in their annual report. The Navy sees a challenge with
collecting direct cost data since it may by contained in various
systems. Also, recommend not going beyond direct cost as it is hard to
capture. Likely the effort to capture would far exceed the return
gained.
Recommendation 11: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretaries of the Department of the Army, the Department
of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force to establish and
periodically review fellowship written agreements or memoranda of
understanding to document key information and expectations between the
Services and host organizations, such as fellowship objectives,
criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of fees or tuition charged
to DOD, and criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of the
projects involved.
DoD Response: Concur.
DoD Action Plan: The Department will release a memorandum to the
Secretaries of the Military Departments asking them to maintain
current fiscal records in a designated office illustrating their
review of these programs in line with the attributes of this
recommendation. Navy has Memorandums of Understanding (MOU's)
currently in place for designated training programs. In addition, each
non-clinical/training with industry training program should have a
training plan that lays out objectives, training requirements and
costs associated with the Integral Parts of Training (IPOT) and
training related travel.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Contact:
Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov.
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact above, Laura Talbott, Assistant Director;
Darreisha Bates; Maria McCollester; Erin Preston; Sara Olds; Terry
Richardson; Amie Steele; Cheryl Weissman; Allen Westheimer; and
Michael Willems made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The fellowship and training-with-industry programs we reviewed
were generally available to officer levels at the intermediate level
of O-3 to O-4, and at the senior level of O-5 to O-6. With the
exception of the Marine Corps Legislative Fellowships, we did not
identify fellowship and training-with-industry programs available to
officer levels of O-1, O-2, O-7, and above during the course of our
review, nor did DOD officials identify such programs.
[2] For the purposes of this report, a think tank is defined as
nonprofit organizations that conduct public policy research and
analysis. We used the service’s categorization of whether or not an
organization was a think tank or an academic institution.
[3] DOD provided Congress with a report on legislative fellowships in
2009 as directed in Senate Report 110–335 accompanying a bill for the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. DOD also
provided the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel with a
report on fellowships at think tanks and training-with-industry
programs in 2010.
[4] We focused our discussions with the services on fellowship and
training-with-industry programs for military officers governed under
DOD Instruction 1322.06, Fellowships, Scholarships, Training-with-
Industry (TWI), and Grants for DOD Personnel (Nov. 15, 2007). While we
did collect some data on the number of participants in fellowships
that are governed primarily under other instructions, the focus of our
review is on fellowships and training-with-industry programs that are
governed under DOD Instruction 1322.06.
[5] DOD Instruction 1322.06, Fellowships, Scholarships, Training-with-
Industry (TWI), and Grants for DOD Personnel (Nov. 15, 2007). While
DOD Instruction 1322.06 governs most DOD fellowships, some of DOD’s
fellowships are administered as part of other DOD programs. For
example, the Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowship Program is
administered separately under DOD Instruction 1322.23, Secretary of
Defense Corporate Fellows Program (SDCFP) (May 20, 2011).
[6] DOD Instruction 1322.06 states that Legislative Fellowship
nominees must be assigned to one of the following staffs: a Defense
oversight committee (Senate or House Armed Services Committee) or
appropriations subcommittee (Senate or House Appropriations Committee—
Defense); an intelligence oversight committee (Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence or House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence);
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Homeland
Security; Senate Foreign Relations; House Foreign Affairs; Senate or
House Veterans Affairs; the staff of the House or Senate Majority or
Minority leader; or the staff of the Speaker of the House.
[7] Legislative and interagency fellowships are different from
assignments known as details in that they include educational
opportunities not found in details. For example, a legislative
fellowship includes course work and a research paper, and a
legislative detail does not. In addition, details are governed by DOD
Directive 1000.17, Detail of DOD Personnel to Duty Outside the
Department of Defense (Jan. 12, 2012).
[8] The Marine Corps does not currently offer a training-with-industry
program.
[9] Professional military education opportunities are also available
at officer levels O-1, O-2, and officer levels O-7 and above. Because
the fellowship and training-with-industry programs we reviewed were
available to officer levels O-3 to O-6, we provided information for
professional military education at those levels.
[10] Officer level O3 corresponds to the rank of captain in the Army,
Air Force, and Marine Corps, and lieutenant in the Navy.
[11] The officer level 04 corresponds to the rank of major in the
Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and lieutenant commander in the
Navy.
[12] Officer level O5 corresponds to the rank of lieutenant colonel in
the Army, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force, and commander in the
Navy. The officer level O6 corresponds to the rank of colonel in the
Army, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force, and captain in the Navy.
[13] The Navy does not grant professional military education credits
to its officers for its intermediate- or senior-level education, or
its fellowships.
[14] Officers may also complete the intermediate- or senior-level
education through nonresident learning programs, where the officer
takes required courses online though correspondence or through a
blended seminar program consisting of online and seminar study.
[15] DOD Instruction 1322.06, Fellowships, Scholarships, Training-With-
Industry (TWI), and Grants for DOD Personnel (Nov. 15, 2007).
[16] DOD Instruction 1322.06 does not cover certain fellowship
programs that are administered separately; for example, the Secretary
of Defense Corporate Fellowship Program or medical fellowships.
[17] OSD has certain congressional reporting requirements concerning
legislative fellowships. The Secretary of Defense is required by
section 1104 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. No. 109-364 (2006)) to report to Congress
quarterly on members of the Armed Forces and DOD civilian employees
who have served continuously in the legislative branch for more than
12 consecutive months in one or a combination of covered legislative
fellowships. USD P&R officials provided us information on the five
times they have reported to Congress since 2007. Although officials we
met said that they had believed the quarterly report requirement to be
a contingent one—that is, such a report only had to be submitted when
the circumstance of an extended fellowship occurred, in March 2011,
DOD’s Office of General Counsel informed USD P&R that a quarterly
report is required even if the circumstances of an extended fellowship
did not occur. USD P&R officials said they will report quarterly even
if there have been no extended fellowships. Also, section 1104
requires the Secretary of Defense to report to the defense and
appropriations committees if a member of the Armed Forces is assigned
to a legislative detail or fellowship as a last tour of duty before
retirement or separation from the Armed Forces. Officials stated they
have yet to submit such a report because a DOD fellow retiring or
separating immediately after a legislative fellowship has not occurred
to the best of their knowledge.
[18] DOD Instruction 1322.23, Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellows
Program (SDCFP) (May 20, 2011) and DOD Instruction 6000.13, Medical
Manpower and Personnel (June 30, 1997).
[19] DOD Instruction 1322.06, Fellowships, Scholarships, Training-with-
Industry (TWI), and Grants for DOD Personnel (Nov. 15, 2007).
[20] Section 2603 was originally enacted in 1962 to address concerns
that servicemembers would be unable to accept prestigious fellowships
or scholarships (such as Rhodes Scholarships) from certain
nongovernmental sources, and to allow DOD to offset its training costs
in certain circumstances. As a general matter, federal officials (to
include officers of the armed services) are prohibited from accepting
pay or other things of value in connection with their government
service from nongovernmental sources. See, e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 209.
Section 2603 provides a limited exception to this rule, by allowing
DOD to offset some of its educational costs, while also allowing
servicemembers to accept potentially desirable fellowships. When a
servicemember accepts a fellowship, scholarship, or grant from a
qualified source, DOD’s costs for training that servicemember are
reduced; for example, if DOD planned to send a servicemember to a
university research center for training, and the servicemember
received a paid fellowship at that university, section 2603 would
allow the servicemember to accept the fellowship, and DOD’s costs for
the training in question would be reduced commensurately.
[21] Section 2603 provides that fellowships may be accepted under
regulations to be prescribed by the president or his designee.
Executive Order No. 11079 (as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 11382, Ex. Ord.
No. 12608, and Ex. Ord. No. 13286) expressly designates the Secretary
of Defense to promulgate regulations under section 2603.The Under
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) promulgated
implementing guidance in DOD Instruction 1322.06, Fellowships,
Scholarships, Training-with-Industry(TWI), and Grants for DOD
Personnel (Nov. 15, 2007).
[22] For example, agreements or other arrangements entered into under
section 2013 are not subject to generally applicable advertising
requirements for government purchases in 41 U.S.C. § 6101.
[23] Intragovernmental training of this kind for civilian personnel is
authorized by 5 U.S.C. § 4104.
[24] Sections 3013, 5013, and 8013 of Title 10 of the United States
Code provide that the secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force,
respectively, are responsible for and have the authority necessary to
conduct training, among other functions.
[25] See also 10 U.S.C. § 9301, which provides similar authority to
the Secretary of the Air Force.
[26] GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1,
2004).
[27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G].
[28] The Army report covered the 2010 calendar year.
[29] See 10 U.S.C. § 2603.
[30] Army Regulation 621–7, Education: Army Fellowships and
Scholarships (Aug. 8, 1997).
[31] GAO, A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development
Efforts in the Federal Government. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G] (Washington, D.C.: March
2004), High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2011),
and Military Training: DOD Needs a Strategic Plan and Better Inventory
and Requirements Data to Guide Development of Language Skills and
Regional Proficiency, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-568] (Washington, D.C.: June 19,
2009).
[32] We identified each office that was involved in the fellowship and
training-with-industry programs and then requested program participant
information from these offices.
[33] These internship opportunities are available to Air Force
officers.
[34] GAO, Organizational Transformation: Implementing Chief Operating
Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-34] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1,
2007).
[35] GAO, Interagency Collaboration: State and Army Personnel Rotation
Programs Can Build on Positive Results with Additional Preparation and
Evaluation, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-386]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2012).
[36] The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs
solicits congressional leadership offices and members for their
interest in a hosting a DOD legislative fellow annually. The DOD
instruction specifies the Senate and House committees, subcommittees,
and member offices for which legislative members, such as the staff of
the Senate Armed Services Committee or House Permanent Subcommittee on
Intelligence, can request a DOD fellow. According to OSD officials,
any member of Congress assigned to one of these committees or
subcommittees is a potential recipient of a DOD legislative fellow.
DOD officials also said that the probability of a congressional
requester receiving a fellow depends on whether the requestor is in a
leadership position or is a member of a committee or subcommittee, and
the extent to which the committee or subcommittee has jurisdiction
over defense-related matters.
[37] GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1,
2004).
[38] The Marine Corps does not currently have a training-with-industry
program.
[39] The Navy Cyber Federal Executive Program has not yet conducted
their first program review. The program began in academic year 2010-
2011.
[40] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G].
[41] Some services’ program goals were stated as the purpose or
objective of the program.
[42] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G].
[43] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G].
[44] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G].
[45] For program reviews completed during the period we reviewed,
fiscal years 2007 through 2011. However, we note that the Army
provided us documentation of a program review that reviewed a portion
of its Senior Service College Fellowships and its Senior Fellowships
in 2007.
[46] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G].
[47] DOD Instruction 1322.06 states that participants in fellowships
and training-with-industry programs should have an immediate follow-on
utilization tour upon completion of the fellowship, but it notes that
each of the military departments may postpone or waive this
requirement as necessary. The instruction also states that the
secretaries of the military departments are responsible for properly
managing the skills gained by the participants in the fellowship
program, and for ensuring that current assignments utilizing the
fellowships and training-with-industry positions meet the intent of
the program and continue to meet military department and DOD
requirements or anticipated needs.
[48] The Marine Corps does not currently have a training-with-industry
program.
[49] Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Instruction 1500.79A,
Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship (June 3, 2011).
[50] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G].
[51] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G].
[52] In January 2012, the Secretary of Defense released strategic
guidance, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st
Century Defense, to help guide DOD decision making in light of DOD’s
efforts to support deficit reduction through a lower level of defense
spending.
[53] Army Regulation 621-7, Army Fellowships and Scholarships (Aug. 8,
1997).
[54] Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Instruction 1590.79A,
Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship (June 3, 2011), and Office of the
Chief of Naval Operations Instruction, 1500.72G Navy Politico-Military
Fellowships, Graduate Education Programs, and Community Sponsorship
(June 22, 2010).
[55] Marine Corps, Order 1520.28B, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Fellows Program (Oct. 22, 1996).
[56] Air Force, Instruction 36-2301, Developmental Education (July 16,
2010).
[57] No tuition or fee is paid to fellowships at other federal
agencies, federally funded research centers, congressional committees
or members, or corporations. In addition, no fee is paid to
corporations that host training-with-industry participants.
[58] These totals include fellowship programs that charge a tuition or
fees. Some programs do not typically charge a tuition or fee, such as
training-with-industry programs or the Secretary of Defense Corporate
Fellowship Program.
[59] The salary and benefits may be included as a direct cost if the
officer is not participating in a fellowship in lieu of attending a
military school. Basic pay during the fellowship varies by officer
level and years of service. Using DOD basic pay in fiscal year 2011,
an O-3 would have an annual basic pay range from approximately $44,500
to $72,500; an O-4 would have an annual basic pay range from
approximately $50,700 to $84,600; an O-5 would have an annual basic
pay range from approximately $58,700 to $99,800; and an O-6 would have
an annual basic pay range from approximately $70,400 to $124,700.
Basic pay does not include other forms of pay, such as housing
allowances.
[60] Some services use a memorandum of agreement rather than a
memorandum of understanding. We refer to both as memoranda of
understanding in this report.
[61] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).
[62] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G].
[63] The Marine Corps does not have a training-with-industry program.
[64] For example, the Army has established memoranda with host
agencies under the Army Intermediate Level Education Interagency
Fellowship Program.
[65] OPNAV, Instruction 1500.72G, Navy Politico-Military Fellowships,
Graduate Education Programs and Community Sponsorship (June 22, 2010);
and Army, Regulation 621-7: Army Fellowships and Scholarships (Aug. 8,
1997).
[66] As discussed earlier in this report, we found certain Army
fellowship programs that were not in compliance with the statutory
requirement; however, the Army still had a general process to provide
assurances that officers complete the lesser service obligation agreed
to by the servicemember.
[67] We focused on military officers because many of the fellowship
programs were only eligible to officers, and we excluded civilians
participating in fellowship and training-with-industry programs
because Senate Report 111-201 accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 directed us to focus on
servicemembers.
[68] For the legislative fellowship program, we used data on the cost
for legislative fellowships in calendar year 2011.
[69] We also interviewed a fellow at a graduate school-—the Institute
of World Politics—-because we initially understood it to be a think
tank.
[End of section]
GAO’s Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the
performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations,
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy,
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports,
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E-
mail Updates.”
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
Connect with GAO:
Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm];
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov;
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470.
Congressional Relations:
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548.
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548.